It is quite heartening that leaders of the Egyptian Muslim Brothers are speaking of their disdain and contempt of the 1979 Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel.

It seems also prudent that the Islamist party, evidently the largest in Egypt, will not embark on a rash feat that could invite uncalculated reactions from the Zionist entity and its western allies, especially her guardian-ally, the United States.

The Muslim Brothers have said that they will respect Egypt's international obligations.

None the less, the Camp David treaty was not really a treaty of peace, but rather a treaty of submission and capitulation to Zionist regional hegemony, arrogance and military supremacy.

True, the Sinai Peninsula was "returned" to Egypt to the last inch. However, it is also true that vast swathes of the Sinai desert became off limit to the Egyptian forces. This is why smugglers, terrorists, saboteurs and foreign agents seem to act freely throughout that territory, blowing up gas pipelines, smuggling narcotics and other contrabands, and even attacking symbols of Egyptian sovereignty, including police centers and tourist resorts.

The defunct Egyptian regime of ex President Hosni Mubarak claimed mendaciously that the Sinai desert was completely liberated from the Israeli occupation. But how can Sinai are really completely liberated when the bulk of its territory is still off limit to the Egyptian army and air force?

In addition, it is quite scandalous how Israel came to understand the infamous treaty, e.g. that it gave the Zionist entity a carte blanch to gang up on the Palestinians, liquidate the Palestinian cause, though gradually and by desensitizing the world's moral conscience, and carrying out recurrent genocidal campaigns aimed at murdering, incinerating and maiming as many Palestinians as possible.

If evidence were needed, we are all invited to revisit the 2008-09 Israeli blitzkrieg on the Gaza Strip which did to Gaza what the allies bombing did to Dresden in the last phases of the Second World War.

Well, under these circumstances, one is prompted to ask whether Egypt, especially under an Islamist-ruled or Islamist influenced regime, is under any legal or moral obligation to abide by such a treaty.

Of course, the final say in this regard belongs to the Egyptian people. But the Egyptian people, who have suffered so much and for so long from Israeli criminality and aggression, and barbarianism doesn't seem to give that treaty the benefit of the doubt, that is if there is any doubt about the treaty's ignominious nature and disastrous legacy.

I realize that spasmodic and uncalculated statements may do more harm than good. However, there should be no question as to the pressing need to renegotiate that treaty if only because the government that signed that treaty back in 1979 was not a democratic government, which didn't enjoy the Egyptian people's acceptance.

This week, a Muslim Brotherhood's leader, Rashad Bayoumy, made it very clear that the Brotherhood will not recognize the "criminal state of Israel."

"Is it a pre-condition to recognize Israel in order to govern? This is not possible, no matter what the circumstances are. We don't recognize Israel at all. It is a criminal occupier."

Bayoumy, who is deputy to the Brotherhood's Supreme Guide, stressed that no member of the Brotherhood will ever sit down with an Israeli.

"I will not allow myself to sit with a criminal. We will not deal with them in any way."

He added that the Brotherhood may hold a national referendum to measure public opinion before taking a final decision about the treaty.

"We will take all the correct legal procedures with the treaty, it is not biding for me, and the people will have the final opinion about it.

"We didn't agree to the peace treaty; we will take all respectable legal procedures towards it. I believe we have the right to present it to the people and the elected parliament so that they can come to a decision about it."

The above words spell resolve but impetuousness as they reflect the long-suppressed disdain and rejection among Egyptians of a so-called peace treaty that enabled Israel to gang on the Palestinians and arrogated the remainder of their homeland.

In the final analysis, Egypt can and should hold Israel to account over the clauses of the treaty which make it an integral part of a wider process which also includes resolving the Palestinian question in accordance with UN Security Council 242 and 338.

However, since Israel has violated these resolutions rather starkly and scandalously, if only by building hundreds of Jewish colonies on occupied land, and by transferring hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live on land that belongs to another people, Egypt should be able to downgrade its commitment to and compliance with the infamous treaty to the bare minimum.

Such a posture on Egypt's part wouldn't be viewed as declaration of war or even a unilateral promulgation of the treaty. It would only be viewed as a necessary measure reflecting Egypt 's sovereignty and national will.

There is no doubt that the treaty and relations with Israel will be a litmus test for the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) as well as the other Islamist party, the Nur, representing the Salafi brothers.

The Islamists under all circumstances must keep a distance from Israel even if bullied, coerced and pressured by the United States to behave otherwise. Any concession, real or imagined, in this regard will cost the Islamists dearly in terms of their standing in the eyes of the people.

The Islamists must not allow themselves to gain acceptance and favor from the criminal entity and her supporters, especially the Jewish-controlled US Congress, at the expense of the Egyptian people's acceptance of the Islamists.

In Egypt as elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world, there is a mutually exclusive relationship between having normal relations with Israel and being accepted and respected by the masses. A government, including an Islamist or quasi-Islamist government, can only have either good relations with Israel and her supporters on the one hand, or acceptance and respect from the people, on the other. It can't have both, period.

* Khalid Amayreh a journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian town of Dura. He obtained his MA in journalism from the University of Southern Illinois in 1983.

In history, it is sometimes necessary to pause, reflect, assess and draw conclusions (and lines) which may be passed to future generations just in case we mortals miss the link. It is with this in mind that we may recall and connect two iconic events, though spaced by thousands of miles and 36 eventful years, which bring to mind an incredible image.

The first event took place in April 1975 as America was desperately counting the days to its final evacuation of Saigon (South Vietnam's capital city at the time) after its bloodiest war in SE Asia since WW2.

America was caught unaware by the speed with which the Viet Cong were advancing south towards Saigon. The ruling Vietnamese Junta, like all corrupt dictators, sped away to 'exit' in limousines and armoured personnel carriers leaving behind remnants of their corrupt regimes. In the desperate attempt to evacuate its military, secret service and CIA personnel from Saigon, the United State military had to send helicopters to lift its citizens out of buildings from the centre of Saigon because the city gates were jammed by massive queues of people running for the exit and the Viet Cong closing any major highway leading out of the city.

One iconic photo which, until today, captures the Fall of Saigon, showed American personnel being airlifted from the roof top of what was believed by many to be the American Embassy in Saigon, and which turned out to be the HQ building of the CIA in Saigon. This is confirmed by Hubert Van Es, the photographer who took that picture.

The headlines on the front pages of some US mainstream media outlets at the time was: "American escapes on helicopter skids".

photo copyright: H Van Es

Thirty six years later, a similar event took place in Cairo last Friday when, Egyptians, still smarting from their success in Tahrir Square but now very angry at the killing of 6 Egyptian border guards last month in Sharm-El-Sheikh by the Israeli enemy, stormed the Israeli embassy compound in Cairo after Friday prayers, and penetrated its perimeter wall in an attempt to enter the embassy building itself. It was reported that the Israeli ambassador, his family and most of the staff were whisked away by Israeli military aircraft, leaving behind a number of their own quarantined in the basement area of the building.

Only a desperate telephone call placed in the middle of the night by Benyamin Netanyahu, PM of Israel to Barack Obama, president of the United States, managed to save these guys as Israeli helicopters hovered above to pull them out and whisk them to safety. God knows if they were Mossad agents seconded to the embassy.

Unlike the Saigon event, no pictures of this particular escape are available (as this escape was typically planned at night). Only images of the Egyptian people storming the Israeli 'wall' of the compound were running on the front pages of Middle East news media.

Egyptian people storming the Israeli wall - Cairo

From Saigon to Cairo, there exists a geographical line which, if drawn accurately, will pass through Sharm-El-Sheikh.

Video link: http://youtu.be/F-CZQGSti2A

In this TV ad, French international news channel France 24 is promoting Twitter's power to dislodge dictators in a dramatized manner.

The two-minute ad shows an animated Mubarak (Egypt), Ben Ali (Tunisia) and Gadaffi-like under attack by righteously blue angry birds representing freedom. The scene, of course, is an allegory for the Arab Spring, in which Twitter, Facebook and other forms of social media contributed to the ousting of rulers in Egypt and Tunisia along with civil uprisings in Libya and many other Arab countries.

By Jonathan Cook * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Israeli officials have expressed alarm at a succession of moves by the interim Egyptian government that they fear signal an impending crisis in relations with Cairo.

The widening rift was underscored on 4 May when leaders of the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah signed a reconciliation pact in the Egyptian capital. Egypt's secret role in brokering the agreement last week caught both Israel and the United States by surprise.

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, called the deal "a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism".

Several other developments have added to Israeli concerns about its relations with Egypt, including signs that Cairo hopes to renew ties with Iran and renegotiate a long-standing contract to supply Israel with natural gas.

More worrying still to Israeli officials are reported plans by Egyptian authorities to open the Rafah crossing into Gaza, closed for the past four years as part of a Western-backed blockade of the enclave designed to weaken Hamas, the ruling Islamist group there.

Egypt is working out details to permanently open the border, an Egyptian foreign ministry official told the Reuters news agency on 1 May. The blockade would effectively come to an end as a result.

The same day Egypt's foreign minister, Nabil Elaraby, called on the United States to recognize a Palestinian state – in reference to a move expected in September by Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, to seek recognition of Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.

Israel and the US have insisted that the Palestinians can achieve statehood only through negotiations with Israel. Talks have been moribund since Israel refused last September to renew a partial freeze on settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

According to analysts, the interim Egyptian government, under popular pressure, is consciously distancing itself from some of the main policies towards Israel and the Palestinians pursued by Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian president overthrown by a popular uprising in February.

Mubarak was largely supportive of Israel and Washington's blockade policy to contain Hamas's influence. Egypt receives more than 1.3 billion dollars annually in US aid, second only to Israel.

But the popular mood in Egypt appears to be turning against close diplomatic ties with Israel.

A poll published last week by the Pew Research Centre showed that 54 per cent of Egyptians backed the annulment of the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, with only 36 per cent wanting it maintained.

Israel's Yedioth Aharonoth daily reported this week that Egyptian social media sites had called for a mass demonstration outside the Israeli embassy, demanding the expulsion of the ambassador, Yitzhak Levanon.

In comments to several media outlets last weekend, unnamed senior Israeli officials criticized Egypt's new foreign policy line. One told the Wall Street Journal that Cairo's latest moves could "affect Israel's national security on a strategic level".

Another unnamed official told the Jerusalem Post that "the upgrading of the relationship between Egypt and Hamas" might allow the Islamic movement to develop into a "formidable terrorist military machine".

Silvan Shalom, Israel's deputy prime minister, told Israel Radio on 1 May that Israel should brace for significant changes in Egyptian policies that would allow Iran to increase its influence in Gaza.

Egypt's chief of staff, Sami Hafez Anan, responded dismissively on his Facebook page to such statements, saying, "Israel has no right to interfere. This is an Egyptian-Palestinian matter."

In a sign of Israeli panic, Netanyahu is reported to be considering sending his special adviser, Isaac Molho, to Cairo for talks with the interim government.

In recent weeks, Netanyahu has repeatedly complained to visiting European ambassadors and US politicians about what he regards as a new, more hostile climate in Egypt.

Late last month Elaraby said Egypt was ready to "turn over a new leaf" in relations with Tehran, which were severed after the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty more than three decades ago.

Egyptian officials have also warned that the supply of natural gas to Israel may be halted. The pipeline has been attacked twice on the Egyptian side, including last week, in acts presumed to be sabotage.

Even if Egypt continues the flow of gas, it is almost certain to insist on a sharp rise in the cost, following reports that Mubarak and other officials are being investigated on corruption charges relating to contracts that underpriced gas to Israel.

Yoram Meital, an expert on Israeli-Egyptian relations at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva, said Egypt's policy change towards Gaza threatened to "provoke a severe crisis in Egyptian-Israeli relations" by undermining Israel's policy of isolating Hamas.

With the toppling of Mubarak's authoritarian regime, Meital noted, the Egyptian government is under pressure to be more responsive to local opinion.

"We are at the beginning of this crisis but we are not there yet. However, there is room for a great deal more deterioration in relations over the coming months," he said.

Analysts said Cairo wanted to restore its traditional leadership role in the Arab world and believed it was hampered by its ties with Israel.

Menha Bahoum, a spokeswoman for the Egyptian Foreign Ministry, told the New York Times last week: "We are opening a new page. Egypt is resuming its role that was once abdicated."

That assessment is shared by Hamas and Fatah, both of which were looking to Egypt for help, said Menachem Klein, a politics lecturer at Bar Ilan University.

He noted that Abbas had lost his chief Arab sponsor in the form of Mubarak, and that the Hamas leadership's base in Syria was precarious given the current upheavals there.

With growing demands from the Palestinian public for reconciliation, neither faction could afford to ignore the tide of change sweeping the Arab world, he said.

Meital said: "We are entering a new chapter in the region's history and Israeli politicians and the public are not yet even close to understanding what is taking place".

* Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair".

By Dr. Ashraf Ezzat * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Demands: Embassy Closure and Withdrawal from The Camp David Accords in Wake of Renewed Attacks on Gaza

From Exclusive Video Coverage of The Embassy Seige

Editor's notes: The western press and even Al Jazeera have failed to report today's demonstrations in Tahir Square, Cairo accurately. Thousands of Egyptians marched from the square to the Israeli Embassy, demanding that the current military government end diplomatic relations with Israel in wake of the recent assault on Gaza by the IDF.

Israel claims that a school bus was attacked with a mortar round this week and it was necessary for the army to respond with tanks, helicopters, rockets and a step-up of the nightly bombing campaign that has gone on for months.

Skeptics doubt Israel's claim of an attack from Gaza, citing Israel's propensity for fabricating threats and the bizarre choice of weapons. From an American intelligence source who has worked with Israel for decades:

Israel has been using the "mortar attack" story more and more. Any small explosive charge can be made to look like a mortar attack. even a hand grenade. You only need to throw a few shards of metal around, the cheapest and dirtiest "false flag" possible and Israel has done this dozens of times.

Hamas has mortars but they also have thousands of RPGs. That's the weapon used to go after a vehicle. Saying someone shot a mortar at a bus is simply idiotic. If Gaza has the weapons Israel claims, Russian Kornet and RPG 29s which are capable of destroying Israel's Merkava tanks quite readily, as Hizbollah proved, the "school bus" story is even more fictional.

EXCLUSIVE TODAY VIDEO

VIDEO LINK: http://youtu.be/u6jC4gCGH4s

Background, The Egyptian Anti-Israeli Backlash

Egyptians marching to the Israeli embassy in cairo, protesting over Israeli strikes of Gaza.

On this very day, April 8th since 41 years the Israeli air force struck the village of Bahr el-Baqar – an Egyptian small village near Suez Canal. The raid resulted in the total destruction of an elementary school full of school children. Five bombs and 2 air-to-ground missiles struck the single-floor school. Of the 130 school children who attended the school, 46 were killed, and over 50 wounded, many of them maimed for life. The school itself was completely demolished.

That tragic day marked the first encounter of the Egyptian people with the brutality and the indiscriminate aggression of the Israelis that targeted the innocent and unarmed civilians. This air raid demolished not only the school building but also the remains of any hopes for Israel to be seen as a friendly neighbor state.

From then on Israel was the absolute enemy in the eyes of every average Egyptian.

This terrorist attack on the innocent Egyptian school children has been deeply engraved in the memory of all Egyptians. And to make sure that no one forgot what Israel had done on that day, Egyptians made April 8th a mourning day for the killed school children of Bahr el-Bakar and to be commemorated every year for the last 41 years.

Only this year it was rather different.

Egypt-Israel relations in the last 40 years

Egypt has just emerged from its worldwide celebrated revolution which managed to topple the long lasting in power dictator, Hosni Mubarak.

So many things happened in Egypt since the Israeli raid on April 8th, 1970.

• Egypt retaliated against years of Israeli military aggression and political arrogance in the glorious October war 1973 against Israel.

• President Sadat signed – on an individual initiative- a peace treaty with Israel 1979 (based on Camp David accords) that never managed to naturalize relations between Egyptians and Israelis.

• Mubarak ruled Egypt since 1980 and began a long era of not only observing the terms of the peace treaty but to acting as the closest friend of Israel and the White House in the Middle East.

• Mubarak, through his corrupt reign, helped Israel tighten its shameful siege on Gaza and even supplied Tel Aviv with the natural gas they needed for power and electricity production with prices well under the world rates. (enriching himself in the process) But his most appreciated contribution to the Zionist regime in Israel was the complete Egyptian withdrawal from actively participating in the key issues of the Arab- Israeli conflict.

Gaza under fire again

Lately, the unrest began to resurface again at the border line between Gaza and Israel. On Friday April 8th Five Palestinians have been killed and around 45 wounded in Israeli air strikes on the Gaza Strip following an offer of a ceasefire from Hamas after a surge in cross-border violence that was dramatically reduced by Israel and sold to the world as the usual "selective" Palestinian attack, by their most primitive handmade rockets, on a school bus – an area of specialty long mastered by the Israelis since Bahr el-Bakar school massacre.

Thus began another expected scenario of disproportionate Israeli attacks on the civilians and children in Gaza with the civilized world muted and turning a blind eye as usual.

The world has grown numb and painfully insensitive to the crimes of Israel against the Arab Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank.

And with judge Richard Goldstone bowing out and going back on his indictment of the Israeli crimes committed during the war on Gaza 2009; the world seems like a barren place for the Palestinians devoid of any free voices left to stand up against the Israeli insolence.

And just when the Palestinians in Gaza thought they were facing this new Israeli attacks alone and with their backs against the wall, they found out they forgot, over the years, that they had brothers in Egypt who are willing not only to accompany them in their struggle against Israel but to protect their backs as well.

Embassy under siege

On the very same day of April 8th and as Egyptians were protesting in Tahrir square demanding that Mubarak and his inner circle of aids to be put on trial and as the news of the Israeli attacks on Gaza made its way to the square at the heart of Cairo, thousands immediately took to the district where the Israeli embassy in Cairo is located.

Egyptians held back – by the military forces- from advancing into the building where the embassy lies practically surrounded the embassy in what seemed like a gigantic human shield. The angry protesters held flags of both Egypt and Palestine and raised big posters of al Aqsa mosque- temple mount in Jerusalem.

On a live coverage by Aljazeera of the march to the Israeli embassy- that somehow failed to make it to the news headlines- some of the protesters expressed their anger at the recent unjust Israeli attacks on Gaza and they made it clear they expected nothing less than the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador out of Egypt and taking the Israeli flag off the embassy building.

Some of the protesters went far as to demand the immediate end to the siege imposed on Gaza from the Egyptian side and a freeze of the Egyptian supply of natural gas to Israel. But the most daring request came by many protesters who called for a public referendum to allow the Egyptian people to have their say about the peace treaty president Sadat had signed 30 years ago.

Amidst that overwhelming atmosphere of antagonism to Israel and its unacceptable and inhuman war of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians the Israeli embassy at the top floor of the building on the other side of the Nile opposite to Tahrir square found no other option than to dim out the lights and keep its staff hiding inside.

While the Egyptian crowd down in the streets were still swelling in great numbers around the embassy with the intensity of their enthusiasm rising high as they chanted for eternal solidarity with Palestinians the Israeli embassy's lights were almost turned off with the Israeli flag kept as unapparent and way out of sight as possible.

On this April 8th night, and on the very same day that witnessed the massacre of Bahr el-Bakar the Israeli embassy with all the Israeli diplomatic mission in Cairo seemed under siege.

It must have been a terrible night for the Israeli diplomats in Cairo but at least they have experienced, even it was for few hours how it feels to be vulnerable, threatened and under relentless siege.

This public display of the Egyptian anger and dissatisfaction of the Israeli aggressive policy against the Palestinians may pass unreported by the main stream media but never unnoticed by the analysts of the Arab- Israeli conflict especially in the post-Mubarak era in Egypt for what happened on that night of April 8th, 2011 might well depict the scene of the coming Egyptian-Israeli state of affairs.

On this day of commemoration, May the souls of innocent Egyptian and Palestinian children, massacred by the Israeli criminal forces, rest in peace.

* Dr. Ashraf Ezzat: Apart from the medical experience, he's always been engaged in writing activities. He writes articles about ancient Egyptian history, Ancient Near Eastern history, comparative religion and politics especially the Arab- Israeli conflict. Founder and board member of the bibliotheca Alexandrina friends society. Some of His articles have been published in Egyptian magazines and online publications.

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Revolutions raise more questions than answers. The prime one: What happens after the thrill of protest victory wears off?

Zen master Alan Watts once said there are only four basic questions that apply to anything:

What are we going to do?

Who's going to do it?

How are we going to do it?

Who's going to clean up the mess afterwards?

Protests in the streets are only part of the answer to Watt's first question. Do the protestors know or agree upon what they want?

The desire for some kind of change is obvious. But what change will satisfy most or all?

Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph's chief political commentator says, "They have been impelled into action by mass poverty and unemployment, allied to a sense of disgust at vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption."

Will removal of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali or Hosni Mubarak or Ali Abdullah Saleh respond to the problems of "mass poverty and unemployment?"

What's to be done about the "vast divergences of wealth and grotesque corruption referred to by Oborne?"

What about those not actually involved in the demonstrations? How many Tunisians, Egyptians or Yemenis were actually among the protestors? Hundreds of thousands?

What about the rest of the populations (more than 80 million in Egypt)? Do the demonstrators represent them? Should the protestors make decisions about what to do simply because they took part in the shouting and waving of arms and flags?

Oborne questioned the popular belief that the revolutionary activity was stimulated by social networking.

He wrote, "Far from being inspired by Twitter, a great many of Arab people who have driven the sensational events of recent weeks are illiterate."

The last I heard, Egyptian males have a literacy rate of 83%, with females at 59.4%. In Tunisia, it's 78% for all.

While these are a long way from the 90% to 100% rates of 98 countries, they don't preclude the use of social media like Twitter to organize the youth.

However, not even 83% literacy can solve the post demonstration problems. There are those who want constitutional changes. Others look for leaders who will not follow in the footsteps of their predecessors.

Then there are dreamers who hope that employment and elimination of poverty will somehow come out of a genii's bottle.

Protestors look back with obsessions about the ills that brought them into the streets. As long as the past commands attention, the question of "who" cannot be focused on tomorrow.

Answers to "what are we going to do?" should extend beyond cleaning the political house.

Some semblance of unity must preclude the choice of "who's going to do it?" Things don't simply run by themselves. Post revolutions require leaders to take over the task of putting humpty dumpty back together again.

If supreme councils or parliaments could lead, the loudly touted democracies wouldn't need presidents or prime ministers or cabinets to run things.

How much do the demonstrators take into account the need for leaders with the expertise or experience necessary to make the decisions that keep a country functioning?

The mess to be cleaned up afterward includes recovering an economy wrecked by the revolution.

The Egyptian economy, for example, depends heavily on a tourist trade that is now in shambles.

Dear protestors, in getting rid of one problem, you have created another that may be harder on your pocket book than the one you eliminated.

The problems you create will be greater than the ones you solve. Look at the history of any revolution. Then go home and start answering Watt's questions.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By James Petras* | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction

Most accounts of the Arab revolts from Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq and elsewhere have focused on the most immediate causes: political dictatorships, unemployment, repression and the wounding and killing of protestors. They have given most attention to the "middle class", young, educated activists, their communication via the internet, (Los Angeles Times, Feb. 16, 2011) and, in the case of Israel and its Zionists conspiracy theorists, "the hidden hand" of Islamic extremists (Daily Alert Feb. 25, 2011).

What is lacking is any attempt to provide a framework for the revolt which takes account of the large scale, long and medium term socio-economic structures as well as the immediate 'detonators' of political action. The scope and depth of the popular uprisings, as well as the diverse political and social forces which have entered into the conflicts, preclude any explanations which look at one dimension of the struggles.

The best approach involves a 'funnel framework' in which, at the wide end (the long-term, large-scale structures), stands the nature of the economic, class and political system; the middle-term is defined by the dynamic cumulative effects of these structures on changes in political, social and economic relations; the short-term causes, which precipitate the socio-political-psychological responses, or social consciousness leading to political action.

The Nature of the Arab Economies

With the exception of Jordan, most of the Arab economies where the revolts are taking place are based on 'rents' from oil, gas, minerals and tourism, which provide most of the export earnings and state revenues(Financial Times, Feb. 22, 2011, p. 14). These economic sectors are, in effect, export enclavesWorld Bank Annual Report 2009). These export sectors do not have links to a diversified productive domestic economy: oil is exported and finished manufactured goods as well as financial and high tech services are all imported and controlled by foreign multi-nationals and ex-pats linked to the ruling class (Economic and Political Weekly, Feb. 12, 2011, p. 11). Tourism reinforces 'rental' income, as the sector, which provides 'foreign exchange' and tax revenues to the class – clan state. The latter relies on state-subsidized foreign capital and local politically connected 'real estate' developers for investment and imported foreign construction laborers. employing a tiny fraction of the labor force and define a highly specialized economy (

Rent-based income may generate great wealth, especially as energy prices soar, but the funds accrue to a class of "rentiers" who have no vocation or inclination for deepening and extending the process of economic development and innovation. The rentiers "specialize" in financial speculation, overseas investments via private equity firms, extravagant consumption of high-end luxury goods and billion-dollar and billion-euro secret private accounts in overseas banks.

The rentier economy provides few jobs in modern productive activity; the high end is controlled by extended family-clan members and foreign financial corporations via ex-pat experts; technical and low-end employment is taken up by contract foreign labor, at income levels and working conditions below what the skilled local labor force is willing to accept.

The enclave rentier economy results in a clan-based ruling class which 'confounds' public and private ownership: what's 'state' is actually absolutist monarchs and their extended families at the top and their client tribal leader, political entourage and technocrats in the middle.

These are "closed ruling classes". Entry is confined to select members of the clan or family dynasties and a small number of "entrepreneurial" individuals who might accumulate wealth servicing the ruling clan-class. The 'inner circle' lives off of rental income, secures payoffs from partnerships in real estate where they provide no skills, but only official permits, land grants, import licenses and tax holidays.

Beyond pillaging the public treasury, the ruling clan-class promotes 'free trade', i.e. importing cheap finished products, thus undermining any indigenous domestic start-ups in the 'productive' manufacturing, agricultural or technical sector.

As a result there is no entrepreneurial national capitalist or 'middle class'. What passes for a middle class are largely public sector employees (teachers, health professionals, functionaries, firemen, police officials, military officers) who depend on their salaries, which, in turn, depend on their subservience to absolutist power. They have no chance of advancing to the higher echelons or of opening economic opportunities for their educated offspring.

The concentration of economic, social and political power in a closed clan-class controlled system leads to an enormous concentration of wealth. Given the social distance between rulers and ruled, the wealth generated by high commodity prices produces a highly distorted image of per-capital "wealth"; adding billionaires and millionaires on top of a mass of low-income and underemployed youth provides a deceptively high average income (Washington Blog, 2/24/11).

Rentier Rule: By Arms and Handouts

To compensate for these great disparities in society and to protect the position of the parasitical rentier ruling class, the latter pursues alliances with, multi-billion dollar arms corporations, and military protection from the dominant (USA) imperial power. The rulers engage in "neo-colonization by invitation", offering land for military bases and airfields, ports for naval operations, collusion in financing proxy mercenaries against anti-imperial adversaries and submission to Zionist hegemony in the region (despite occasional inconsequential criticisms).

In the middle term, rule by force is complemented by paternalistic handouts to the rural poor and tribal clans; food subsidies for the urban poor; and dead-end make-work employment for the educated unemployed (Financial Times, 2/25/11, p. 1). Both costly arms purchases and paternalistic subsidies reflect the lack of any capacity for productive investments. Billions are spent on arms rather than diversifying the economy. Hundreds of millions are spent on one-shot paternalistic handouts, rather than long-term investments generating productive employment.

The 'glue' holding this system together is the combination of modern pillage of public wealth and natural energy resources and the use of traditional clan and neo-colonial recruits and mercenary contractors to control and repress the population. US modern armaments are at the service of anachronistic absolutist monarchies and dictatorships, based on the principles of 18^th century dynastic rule.

The introduction and extension of the most up-to-date communication systems and ultra-modern architecture shopping centers cater to an elite strata of luxury consumers and provides a stark contrast to the vast majority of unemployed educated youth, excluded from the top and pressured from below by low-paid overseas contract workers.

Neo-Liberal Destabilization

The rentier class-clans are pressured by the international financial institutions and local bankers to 'reform' their economies: 'open' the domestic market and public enterprises to foreign investors and reduce deficits resulting from the global crises by introducing neo-liberal reforms (Economic and Political Weekly, 2/12/11, p. 11).

As a result of "economic reforms" food subsidies for the poor have been lowered or eliminated and state employment has been reduced, closing off one of the few opportunities for educated youth. Taxes on consumers and salaried/wage workers are increased while the real estate developers, financial speculators and importers receive tax exonerations. De-regulation has exacerbated massive corruption, not only among the rentier ruling class-clan, but also by their immediate business entourage.

The paternalistic 'bonds' tying the lower and middle class to the ruling class have been eroded by foreign-induced neo-liberal "reforms", which combine 'modern' foreign exploitation with the existing "traditional" forms of domestic private pillage. The class-clan regimes no longer can rely on the clan, tribal, clerical and clientelistic loyalties to isolate urban trade unions, student, small business and low paid public sector movements.

The Street against the Palace

The 'immediate causes' of the Arab revolts are centered in the huge demographic-class contradictions of the clan-class ruled rentier economy. The ruling oligarchy rules over a mass of unemployed and underemployed young workers; the latter involves between 50% to 65% of the population under 25 years of age (Washington Blog, 2/24/11). The dynamic "modern" rentier economy does not incorporatethe street as venders, transport and contract workers and in personal services. The ultra- modern oil, gas, real estate, tourism and shopping-mall sectors are dependent on the political the newly educated young into modern employment; it relegates them into the low-paid unprotected "informal economy" of and military support of backward traditional clerical, tribal and clan leaders, who are subsidized but never 'incorporated' into the sphere of modern production. The modern urban industrial working class with small, independent trade unions is banned. Middle class civic associations are either under state control or confined to petitioning the absolutist state.

The 'underdevelopment' of social organizations, linked to social classes engaged in modern productive activity, means that the pivot of social and political action is the street. Unemployed and underemployed part-time youth engaged in the informal sector are found in the plazas, at kiosks, cafes, street corner society, and markets, moving around and about and outside the centers of absolutist administrative power. The urban mass does not occupy strategic positions in the economic system; but it is available for mass mobilizations capable of paralyzing the streets and plazas through which goods and services are transported out and profits are realized. Equally important, mass movements launched by the unemployed youth provide an opportunity for oppressed professionals, public sector employees, small business people and the self-employed to engage in protests without being subject to reprisals at their place of employment – dispelling the "fear factor" of losing one's job.

The political and social confrontation revolves around the opposite poles: clientelistic oligarchies and de clasé masses (the Arab Street). The former depends directly on the state (military/police apparatus) and the latter on amorphous local, informal, face-to-face improvised organizations. The exception is the minority of university students who move via the internet. Organized industrial trade unions come into the struggle late and largely focus on sectoral economic demands, with some exceptions – especially in public enterprises, controlled by cronies of the oligarchs, where workers demand changes in management.

As a result of the social particularities of the rentier states, the uprisings do not take the form of class struggles between wage labor and industrial capitalists. They emerge as mass political revolts against the oligarchical state. Street-based social movements demonstrate their capacity to delegitimize state authority, paralyze the economy, and can lead up to the ousting of the ruling autocrats. But it is the nature of mass street movements to fill the squares with relative ease, but also to be dispersed when the symbols of oppression are ousted. Street-based movements lack the organization and leadership to project, let alone impose a new political or social order. Their power is found in their ability to pressureseize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors. existing elites and institutions, not to replace the state and economy.

Hence the surprising ease with which the US, Israeli and EU backed Egyptian military were able to seize power and protect the entire rentier state and economic structure while sustaining their ties with their imperial mentors.

Converging Conditions and the "Demonstration Effect"

The spread of the Arab revolts across North Africa, the Middle East and Gulf States is, in the first instance, a product of similar historical and social conditions: rentier states ruled by family-clan oligarchs dependent on "rents" from capital intensive oil and energy exports, which confine the vast majority of youth to marginal informal 'street-based' economic activities.

The "power of example" or the "demonstration effect" can only be understood by recognizing the same socio-political conditions in each country. Street power – mass urban movements – presumes the streetlocus of the principal actors and the takeover of the plazas as the place to exert political power and project social demands. No doubt the partial successes in Egypt and Tunisia did detonate the movements elsewhere. But they did so only in countries with the same historical legacy, the same social polarities between rentier – clan rulers and marginal street labor and especially where the rulers were deeply integrated and subordinated to imperial economic and military networks. as the economic

Conclusion

Rentier rulers govern via their ties to the US and EU military and financial institutions. They modernize their affluent enclaves and marginalize recently educated youth, who are confined to low paid jobs, especially in the insecure informal sector, centered in the streets of the capital cities. Neo-liberal privatizations, reductions in public subsidies (for food, unemployment subsidies, cooking oil, gas, transport, health, and education) shattered the paternalistic ties through which the rulers contained the discontent of the young and poor, as well as clerical elites and tribal chiefs. The confluence of classes and masses, modern and traditional, was a direct result of a process of neo-liberalization from above and exclusion from below. The neo-liberal "reformers" promise that the 'market' would substitute well-paying jobs for the loss of state paternalistic subsidies was false. The neo-liberal polices reinforced the concentration of wealth while weakening state controls over the masses.

The world capitalist economic crises led Europe and the US to tighten their immigration controls, eliminating one of the escape valves of the regimes – the massive flight of unemployed educated youth seeking jobs abroad. Out-migration was no longer an option; the choices narrowed to struggle or suffer. Studies show that those who emigrate tend to be the most ambitious, better educated (within their class) and greatest risk takers. Now, confined to their home country, with few illusions of overseas opportunities, they are forced to struggle for individual mobility at home through collective social and political action.

Equally important among the political youth, is the fact that the US, as guarantor of the rentier regimes, is seen as a declining imperial power: challenged economically in the world market by China; facing defeat as an occupying colonial ruler in Iraq and Afghanistan; and humiliated as a subservient and mendacious servant of an increasingly discredited Israel via its Zionist agents in the Obama regime and Congress. All of these elements of US imperial decay and discredit, encourage the pro-democracy movements to move forward against the US clients and lessen their fears that the US military would intervene and face a third military front. The mass movements view their oligarchies as "third tier" regimes: rentier states under US hegemony, which, in turn, is under Israeli – Zionist tutelage. With 130 countries in the UN General Assembly and the entire Security Council, minus the US, condemning Israeli colonial expansion; with Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia and the forthcoming new regimes in Yemen and Bahrain promising democratic foreign policies, the mass movements realize that all of Israel's modern arms and 680,000 soldiers are of no avail in the face of its total diplomatic isolation, its loss of regional rentier clients, and the utter discredit of its bombastic militarist rulers and their Zionist agents in the US diplomatic corps (Financial Times 2/24/11, p. 7).

The very socio-economic structures and political conditions which detonated the pro-democracy mass movements, the unemployed and underemployed youth organized from "the street", now present the greatest challenge: can the amorphous and diverse mass becomes an organized social and political force which can take state power, democratize the regime and, at the same time, create a new productive economy to provide stable well- paying employment, so far lacking in the rentier economy? The political outcome to date is indeterminate: democrats and socialists compete with clerical, monarchist, and neoliberal forces bankrolled by the U.S.

It is premature to celebrate a popular democratic revolution....

* James Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Cartoon by Sergei Elkin

Why Europe Fears the North African Uprisings

By Behzad Yahmaian * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

While millions in the worl are celebrating the popular uprisings in North Africa, Europe is watching with skepticism and fear. The fall of the African dictators will deprive Europe of valuable allies in the fight against irregular migration. The political vacuum and the social and economic instability that follows will create a new wave of desperate migrants daring the high seas to reach the coats of Europe. This will deepen the immigration crisis Europe has been trying hard to manage in recent years. Europe is responding with an increased use of force. A new humanitarian crisis is looming.

Devastated by war and poverty, thousands of Sub-Saharan Africans have been leaving home on a torturous and long journey north every year. Arriving in Morocco, Tunisia, or Libya, they recuperate from the journey fatigue, pay human smugglers, and climb aboard flimsy boats heading to Italy or Spain. Many fall victim to high waves and deadly storms. The survivors join the army of asylum seekers, or undocumented workers in big cities across the continent.

Removing and returning the migrants to their places of origin or the last country they left before entering Europe has proven impractical. As a result, preventing the Africans from reaching Europe has become a policy priority in recent years. To block their arrival, European states have been signing bilateral agreements with North African dictators, recruiting them to guard the EU borders in return for financial assistance.

In a bilateral agreement with Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali, Italy pledged financial support in exchange for help in preventing African transit immigrants and Tunisians from leaving for Europe. Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali's fall ended the agreement. Border control collapsed in Tunisia and 5000 Tunisians arrived in the Italian port of Lampedusa. Although in much smaller numbers, Egyptians have been leaving their homes and heading to Italy. Egypt remains politically and economically unstable. The continuation of the situation will only increase the number of Egyptians opting for survival in Europe.

In a 2003 agreement between Spain and Morocco, Moroccan authorities pledged full cooperation in migration control in return for $390 million in aid. Two years later in September 2005, Moroccan soldiers and Spanish guards fired at hundreds of Africans trying to enter the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla. Gun shots killed 11 migrants and injured many more. The North African protest movement has already reached the streets of Morocco. Here too, the future of the bilateral pact to stop African migration is at jeopardy.

The most notable of the bilateral agreements with North African dictators was the "Friendship Pact" signed between Italy and Libya on August 30th, 2008. The two countries pledged increase cooperation in "fighting terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration." Muammar Gaddafi agreed to keep African migrants from leaving its frontiers for Italy, and readmit to Libya those intercepted in international waters. The price tag for this service was $5 billion Italian investment, and six patrol boats to police the waterways between Africa and Europe.

On May 6, 2009, the Italian coastguard and naval fleet interdicted a migrant boat in high seas and forcefully returned the passengers to Libya. Italy's interior minister Roberto Maroni hailed the act an "historic day" in the fight against illegal immigration. Among the passengers were vulnerable women and children, those in need of medical assistance, and those with legitimate cause for asylum and international protection. The Human Rights Watch has reported widespread abuse, physical violence, torture of returned migrants in Libya. In some cases, the Libyan authorities sold the Africans to human smugglers who kept them in private jails and released them after receiving money from their families.

The political turmoil in North Africa is also threatening the future of the "Friendship Pact." Mummar Qaddafi has threatened his unilateral cancellation of the agreement if the European governments did not stop criticizing his violent suppression of the Libyan protesters. Qaddafi's armed forces killed hundreds of protesters in recent days. Meanwhile, the anti-government protests are raging in different parts of Libya. The future of the Libyan dictator remains unclear.

On February 15th, the Italian Ministry of Interior sent a formal request for help to Frontex, the European Union's border security agency. On February 20th, Frontex launched the Joint Operation Hermes 2011 with the deployment of additional aerial and maritime assets from Italy and Malta to combat the flow of illegal immigrants from North Africa.

Muammar Gaddafi may succeed in crushing the uprising by the use of extreme force. The dictator's fall will be, however, an irrevocable blow to Europe's current migration policy. The loss of Europe's hired gun in the fight against irregular migration will lead to a more open confrontation between the EU armed guards and the African migrants in high seas. How far will Europe go to stop the African from reaching its frontiers?

* Behzad Yaghmaian is a professor of political economy at Ramapo College of New Jersey, and the author of Embracing the Infidel: Stories of Muslim Migrants on the Journey West and the forthcoming The Greatest Migration: a People’s Story of China’s March to Power. He can be reached at behzad.yaghmaian@gmail.com .

By Neve Gordon * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Illustration by Carlos Latuff

During the climatic days of the unprecedented demonstrations, television news programmes spent most of their airtime covering the protests, while the daily papers dedicated half the news and opinion pages to the unfolding events.

Rather than excitement at watching history in the making, however, the dominant attitude here, particularly on television, was of anxiety – a sense that the developments in Egypt were inimical to Israel's interests. Egypt's revolution, in other words, was bad news.

It took a while for Israel's experts on "Arab affairs" to get a grip on what was happening. During the early days of unrest, the recurrent refrain was that "Egypt is not Tunis".

Commentators assured the public that the security apparatuses in Egypt are loyal to the regime and that consequently there was little if any chance that President Hosni Mubarak's government would fall.

Media switch

Once it became clear that this line of analysis was erroneous, most commentators followed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's lead and criticized President Barack Obama's administration for not supporting Mubarak. The Foreign News editor of one channel noted that: "The fact that the White House is permitting the protests is reason for worry;" while the prominent political analyst Ben Kaspit expressed his longing for President George W. Bush.

"We remember 2003 when George Bush invaded and took over Iraq with a sense of yearning", Ben Kaspit wrote, adding:

Libya immediately changed course and allied itself with the West. Iran suspended its military nuclear programme. Arafat was harnessed. Syria shook with fear. Not that the invasion of Iraq was a wise move (not at all, Iran is the real problem, not Iraq), but in the Middle East whoever does not walk around with a big bat in his hand receives the bat on his head.

Israeli commentators are equivocal on the issue of Egyptian democracy. One columnist explained that it takes years for democratic institutions to be established and for people to internalize the practices appropriate for democracy, while Amir Hazroni from the Israeli news website NRG went so far as to write an ode to colonialism:

When we try to think how and why the United States and the West lost Egypt, Tunis, Yemen and perhaps other countries in the Middle East, people forget that. The original sin began right after World War II, when a wonderful form of government that protected security and peace in the Middle East (and in other parts of the Third Word) departed from this world following pressure from the United States and Soviet Union... More than 60 years have passed since the Arab states and the countries of Africa were liberated from the "colonial yoke", but there still isn't an Arab university, an African scientist or a Middle Eastern consumer product that has made a mark on our world.

Fear and the Muslim Brotherhood

While only a few commentators are as reactionary as Hazroni, an Orientalist perspective permeated most of the discussion about Egypt, thus helping to bolster the already existing Jewish citizenry's fear of Islam. Political Islam is constantly presented and conceived as an ominous force that is antithetical to democracy.

Thus, in the eyes of Israeli analysts, the protestors – that Facebook and Twitter generation – are deserving of empathy but also extremely naïve. There is a shared sense that their fate will end up being identical to that of the Iranian intellectuals who led the protests against the Shah.

Channel Two's expert on "Arab affairs" explained that "The fact that you do not see the Muslim Brotherhood does not mean they are not there", and another expert warned his viewers not to "be misled by [Muhammad] ElBaradei's Viennese spirit, behind him is the Muslim Brotherhood".

According to these pundits, the Muslim Brotherhood made a tactical decision not to distribute Islamists banners or to take an active part in leading the protests. One commentator declared that if the Muslim Brotherhood wins, then "elections are the end of the [democratic] process, not its beginning," while an anchorman for Channel Ten asked former Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer whether "the person who says to himself: 'How wonderful, at last the state of Egypt is a democracy,' is naïve?"

The minister responded:

Allow me even to laugh. We wanted a democracy in Iran and in Gaza. The person who talks like this is ignoring the fact that for over a decade there has been a struggle of giants between the Sunni and Shi'ah with tons of blood spilled. The person who talks about democracy does not live in the reality we live in.

Democratic threat

Ben-Eliezer's response is telling, not least because it is well known that Israel supported the Shah regime in Iran and has not proven itself to be a particularly staunch supporter of Palestinian democracy. Democracy in the Middle East is, after all, conceived by this and previous Israeli governments as a threat to Israel's interests.

Dan Margalit, a well-known commentator, made this point clear when he explained that Israel does not disapprove of a democracy in the largest Arab country but simply privileges Israel's peace agreement with Egypt over internal Arab affairs.

Israel, one should note, is not alone in this self-serving approach; most Western countries constantly lament the absence of democracy in the Arab world, while supporting the dictators and helping them remain in office.

In English this kind of approach has a very clear name: it is called hypocrisy.

* Neve Gordon, is a doctor of Politics and Government at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, who writes on issues relating to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and human rights.

By Paul J. Balles * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

The demonstrations that brought down Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak earlier this month were facilitated by social media Web sites. In Cairo's Tahrir Square, protest art proclaimed (in Arabic): "We are the Men of Facebook." (Tara Todras-whitehill)

"Facts still matter..." said journalist and broadcaster Bill Moyers, quoting Thomas Jefferson, who proclaimed, "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

The revolution in Egypt provides evidence of a public well-informed by 30 years of mostly silent submission to the dictates of a self-serving regime.

Finally, when the silence yielded to a voice that said "Enough", the latest technology and social networking brought that voice to millions ready to protest and bring down the regime.

Their first unstinting demand was for Hosni Mubarak to leave. Mubarak, under his narcissistic spell, couldn't believe what he was seeing and hearing. He was the subject of a mental state that kept him denying reality and blind to the facts.

Moyers refers to research at the University of Michigan, which found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in new stories, they rarely changed their minds.

The same research found that "we often base our opinions on our beliefs ... and rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we choose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit our preconceived notions."

For instance, Egypt not only reeled from a dictator and self-decreed father of his people; Mubarak adamantly refused to be confused by the facts.

Egypt is also the seat of two very different mind-sets that will resist each other. There's the people's mind-set that believes the country needs a new constitution, fair elections and new leaders.

Then there are the old military leaders who know that the existing constitution has benefitted them; and they now believe they are the fathers to the people.

There are numerous other examples of minds closed to facts. In America, for instance, a group referred to as "birthers" believe that Barak Obama was born outside of America.

Just as no amount of evidence can change the birthers' minds, there have been irreconcilable differences between scientists and politicians about climate change. Neither has been willing to examine or able to understand the opposing mind-set.

Similar beliefs and denials have taken place and distorted facts between political parties in every governmental system.

Americans firmly believe, for instance, that the only viable political system is a democracy unless the democratically elected are not the preferred winners. (Think Hamas and Hezbollah).

Those who still insist that the bombing and occupation of Iraq was justified ignore factual evidence to the contrary. No matter how much evidence points to Israel insisting that Iraq's potential for WMDs had to be eliminated, few people accept that fact.

Even though evidence supports the conclusion that Israel has no intention of ever honestly agreeing to a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, people believe the ruse of a negotiated peace.

The problem is not the differences of opinion. The real issue is always that opinions become unchangeable mind-sets. The realities they face raise many questions.

In Egypt, who's going to write the new constitution? Will the military or the people decide what is included? Who will be responsible for fair and open elections? What other influences will play a role?

Who are potential new leaders? Those who have been part of the regime that the people want changed? Or protesters with no experience governing? Will the Muslim brotherhood get a fair chance to take part in a government by a military who have opposed their existence for 30 years?

Egypt, a newcomer to real democracy, not only has a lot to learn about a functioning republic. It has to learn about the perils of locked minds.

Currently there's a similar situation in the US state of Wisconsin. Protesters have been out in the capitol for days with their minds locked onto the belief that the governor wants to destroy the labour unions.

That mind-set has been instilled in thousands who have joined the original smaller group of protestors against a bill that the governor attempted to get passed quickly and without debate in a predominantly republican state senate.

The governor's completely opposite imprisoned mentality absolutely refuses to allow for discussion, debate or negotiation. Both sides have diametrically opposed unchangeable beliefs. Both believe they are right.

It no longer takes 30 years for one mind-set to energise large groups of protestors to rebel. With the media and social networking prepared to rapidly accommodate opposites on any issue, people's revolutions will soon become common.

Will today's peaceful revolutionaries be able to prevail even when force is used against them? How many protesters need to be killed or injured before the authorities yield to demands?

How many peaceful demonstrations need to be turned into carnages and failed revolutions before leaders and the public learn to open their minds to the opposition?

Carl Rogers, the most influential psychologist in American history, said, "The only person who is educated is the one who has learned how to learn and change."

Does that mean that Egyptians needed to empathise with Hosni Mubarak? Or that the people of Wisconsin should accept their governor's position? No.

However, protestors, demonstrators and revolutionaries may have legitimate complaints. Does that convey the ability to govern? No. A lack of knowledge that comes with experience could render things much worse.

Being elected to or inheriting an office does not guarantee proper governance. A guarantee that it's improper comes when thousands of people take to the streets. When that happens it's usually too late.

We need to understand that our beliefs do influence our ability to deal with facts that may not support our beliefs. Unless I'm wrong, we need to look more closely at the facts that don't support our beliefs.

* Paul J. Balles is a retired American university professor and freelance writer who has lived in the Middle East for many years. He's a weekly Op-Ed columnist for the Gulf Daily News. Dr. Balles is also Editorial Consultant for Red House Marketing and a regular contributor to Bahrain This Month.

By Mamoon Alabbasi * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Millions of Egyptian kneel to pray Friday in Cairo's Tahrir Square, where demonstrations were billed as a "Day of Victory and Continuation." (Hussein Malla)

It is easy to see that these protestors come from diverse backgrounds, have different political views and do not necessary share the exact same list of grievances. Not if your view of the region is influenced by an unhealthy negative obsession with Islam. In such case, so called analysts put on their binary world view glasses and see only 'Islamists' or 'the rest' – not that they have an accurate definition for each of those categories. They ignorantly put Al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran in one bag, and like to think that everyone else that remains falls into what they claim is a liberal category.

With this in mind, western observers who were against the uprising in Egypt were quick to warn that this was (or will be) an 'Islamist' revolution, while those who backed it went to great lengths to stress that the Muslim Brotherhood was an insignificant part of it. They cannot see Egyptians outside this two-dimensional view. That's all that matters: not the humanity and suffering of 80 million Egyptians but how powerful will the Brothers emerge in a democratic Egypt. And if the revolution is going to be a success story then they mustn't appear as having played any part in it.

Of course religious Egyptian protestors who are not officially part of the Brotherhood would automatically be calculated as part of 'the rest', even though many of them may hold views that are more conservative. Demonstrators who complained from the former regime's restriction on religious freedoms or its foreign policy (especially with regards to the US, Israel and Palestine) are also conveniently ignored if they are not members of the Brotherhood. Following this logic you'd be forgiven for thinking that being a cyber activist and a devout Muslim are mutually exclusive.

The fact is this was a revolution of the whole of the Egyptian people, including the Brotherhood (and of course Christians too). But the Brothers did not catch up with the revolution late in the day; it was the masses that finally joined their struggle against the regime. Their activists had long been tortured or routinely detained in the regime's jails decades before the 2011 uprising. Every time there was an election, their campaigners were the first usual suspects to be rounded up.

They played a very positive part in the demonstrations and even their former critics commended their role in protecting protestors when they were attacked. They also never sought to hijack the revolution or claim it as their own. In fact they tried to stay out of the limelight to avoid US animosity towards the uprising. They insist that they do not want a 'religious state' and called for democratic reforms (although they too need to reform). They are a part of Egypt, so who stands to gain from dividing Egyptians? Why do outsiders push for hatred instead of free and fair polls?

In a truly democratic Egypt, political parties will have a place, the strength of which would be determined by the ballot box. The Brotherhood may not be the perfect party (despite improvements over the years) for everyone, but the unwarranted demonising of the group by non-Egyptians is a great disservice to the whole of Egypt. We have witnessed great solidarity between Christians and Muslims during the anti-Mubarak protests, which shows that Egyptians – if left to their own devices – can live together without serious sectarian tensions. There were rare scenes of people holding up copies of the Koran and crucifixes shoulder to shoulder. These people included ultra-conservative Muslims; men with long beards, women with niqabs – all of whom expressing sentiments of unity with their fellow Christian citizens.

This inspiring sense of compassion between Egyptians must not be lost. It is even a greater gain than the fall of Mubarak, because united Egyptians can topple any future dictator. Those who have failed to suppress the Egyptian revolution now seek to derail it or rebrand it to keep the status quo of division and mistrust among the people. But Egyptians of all walks of life need to remember their moments of unity in Tahrir Square and across Egypt: do they want this spirit to continue or will they let their ill-wishers divide (and rule) them once more?

* Mamoon Alabbasi (M.A. in applied linguistics) is a news editor and translator based in London. His op-eds, reports, poetry, and reviews have appeared in a number of media outlets.

By Yousef Munayyer * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Thirty years ago the Soviet Union was at the beginning of a long campaign in Afghanistan, the average person was lucky to have an advanced recording technology called a "VHS tape," and Mohammad Hosni Mubarak took control of Egypt, the most populous nation in the Arab Middle East. This week, the last of these beginnings came to an end when millions of Egyptian protestors succeeded in toppling one of the longest standing rulers in the 5,000-year history of Egypt.

But as with all eras, Hosni Mubarak's established norms, some national and others regional, which have now irreversibly changed. What type of government may take form in Egypt in the coming weeks and months is yet to be seen, however, it is highly unlikely that any new government can afford to repeat the mistakes of the previous regime which eliminated pluralistic political participation in the formulation of both domestic and foreign policy.

Many different global players had an investment in the outcome of the drama that finally concluded in Egypt with Mubarak's departure. So after this transformational moment, who are the winners and who are the losers?

The Winners

1. The People of Egypt – After only 18 days, the people of Egypt succeeded in removing a ruler who had governed Egypt for three decades. But the victory for the people of Egypt is far greater than the removal of one person like Mubarak or his family. The fall of Mubarak means the fall of various other players who had been involved in central roles in Mubarak's political party and have used this power to garner wealth while half of Egypt's population lived below the poverty line. The extent to which the people of Egypt remain in the winner's category depends on what happens from this day forward. Transfer of power from an octogenarian dictator to the "supreme military council" is not exactly democratic reform. The next few weeks and months will determine if the generals now in control of Egypt will be willing to genuinely cede power back to the people, and – if this process comes to fruition – if Egypt's future will be bright.

2. The Palestinian People (Especially in Gaza) – For several years, the Mubarak regime has played a direct role in the coordinated siege of Gaza. The siege has, of course, had a devastating effect on the economic status and humanitarian needs in Gaza, and has effectively led to the collective punishment of Gaza's civilian population. The siege has been a major rallying point among Arabs and Muslims and people of conscience around the world who have been appalled by the callous treatment of a largely civilian population, and it should go without saying that Egypt's role in this siege was wildly unpopular in Egypt itself. The regime regularly began demonizing elements in Gaza – creating a boogeyman – to justify the siege among its population as a national security interest. Only days before the fall of the regime, the detested Ministry of Interior, now under house arrest, blamed the horrific bombing of a church in Alexandria, which risked the onset of sectarian violence, on Palestinians from Gaza.

A democratic Egypt, or at least an Egypt which must account for popular sentiment in its foreign policy making, is highly unlikely to cooperate with the Israeli siege of Gaza. Certainly, Israeli and American pressures to maintain this policy will persist regardless of what government is formed, but this newly displayed and remarkable popular outcry will factor heavily into the state's decision calculus in a way that didn't exist before. The Palestinian people, especially those in Gaza for whom Egypt and the Rafah crossing are the only access to the outside world, may finally find relief from the ongoing struggle to secure food and fuel, and travel without threat of prolonged imprisonment or death in a smuggling tunnel.

3. Al Jazeera – The Qatari-backed satellite news network, which was already the most popular news outlet in the Arab world, took tremendous steps forward during this transformational moment. Not only did Al Jazeera's English and Arabic language networks have the best coverage of all other regional networks, they had the best coverage of the situation throughout the world. While most networks were asleep at the control room, Al Jazeera had reporters on the ground in Tahrir Square from the onset covering the event live from every angle and in both languages. This advantage caused various American news networks to rely on Al Jazeera footage and reporters, and, in a rather rare occurrence, the overall narrative on Al Jazeera was mimicked by major news networks in the United States. For all the credit given to the internet and social media, one must note that when Mubarak hit the internet kill switch, the world relied on Al Jazeera to see what was happening in Egypt. This was coupled with an amazing surge in visits to Al Jazeera's Arabic and English websites where viewers from around the world went to watch live coverage.

But Al Jazeera is also in the winner's column because the biggest individual loser, Mubarak, expressly made Al Jazeera his enemy. While most journalists were targeted by the regime's crackdown, Al Jazeera's crew came under significant pressure and their offices in Cairo were set on fire. The network's satellite signal was jammed by the regime in the very early days of the uprising and it was forced to change its frequency numerous times. And while the regime was resisting the demands of the people, both Hosni Mubarak and Omar Suleiman repeatedly blamed "outside influence" and specifically warned people not to watch "satellite channels" clearly referring to Al Jazeera. Ultimately, when news finally came that Mubarak was stepping down, most Egyptians, Arabs and many others around the world watched it live on the Al Jazeera network.

The Losers

1. The Palestinian Authority – It was only days before the January 25th revolution began that Palestinian Authority (PA) officials were making the exact same argument about Al Jazeera that the Mubarak regime was making in its last throws. Al Jazeera was airing an exposé on the "Palestine Papers," documents from behind closed-door negotiations between Israel and the PA that thoroughly embarrassed the Ramallah-based authority, and led Chief Negotiator Saeb Erakat to resign. In response, the PA told Palestinians not to listen to Al Jazeera and argued that the network and the outside forces which control them were attempting a coup against the PA.

But it is not simply the PA's being on the Mubarak side of Al Jazeera which places them in the loser column. The PA relied heavily on the Mubarak regime for several things and it entrusted Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to handle any negotiations between them and their political rivals Hamas. The reason that the PA was so enthralled by Mubarak's regime is perhaps best illuminated by a Wikileak-ed State Department cable where Suleiman "explained that Egypt's three primary objectives with the Palestinians were to maintain calm in Gaza, undermine Hamas, and build popular support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas."

Even during the final days of the Mubarak regime, the PA's security apparatus repressed demonstrations in Ramallah being held in solidarity with the Egyptian people. Shortly after the crowds were dispersed and some of their members arrested, a pro-Mubarak demonstration was permitted to take place. There is little doubt that that the PA was worried that their best friend in the region maybe going on permanent vacation. With a post-Mubarak Egypt, which is unlikely to operate as the old Egypt did, the PA will be increasingly lonely in a region which has grown skeptical of the U.S.-backed regime in Ramallah.

2. Israel – Egypt was Israel's biggest strategic military threat before a peace agreement was signed between the two in 1979. Since then, an Egypt led by Mubarak had become Israel's best friend in the region and cooperated with Israel on the siege of Gaza, but also other strategic and military endeavors. A more democratic Egypt will likely not mean the end to the 1979 Camp David peace accords. Surely, there will be plenty of American pressure on Cairo to make sure that this is the case. But the days of close Egyptian-Israeli security coordination are likely as much a part of the history books as Mubarak himself.

It is not simply the change in the Israeli-Egyptian relationship which will negatively impact Tel Aviv. The impact of the successful overthrow of Mubarak will spread throughout the region which means Arab publics throughout the region will feel empowered – a thought that makes Israeli leaders shiver. Few things have benefited Israeli security more than pacified Arab publics. Moreover, if Egypt's official posture turns away from Israel as expected, it is likely to make things increasingly more uncomfortable for another of Israel's neighbors, Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom, which signed peace with Israel in 1994, may now be Israel's only friend in the region. With Turkey's realignment away from Israel in recent years, and now Egypt's transformation toward democracy, Jordan will find it more difficult to deflect regional and domestic criticism of security cooperation with Israel and maybe forced to adjust its position as well.

3. Saudi Arabia and other "moderates" – Like most around the world, Saudi Arabia was caught off guard by the events which took place in Tunisia leading to the overthrow of Zein Al-Abidine Ben Ali. When no one else would take the first modern Arab dictator to be deposed, Saudi Arabia offered him refuge. But the last thing Saudi Arabia wanted was to start a collection, and it was critical for the United States' oldest ally in the region that what happened in Tunisia stayed in Tunisia. Tunisia could be explained away as a rare event, but if Mubarak fell, the domino effect would be undeniable and the reverberations would head throughout the Middle East.

When the United States began to distance itself from Mubarak, the Saudis notably objected calling on the United States to handle Mubarak with care. Then, when Washington began to question their $1.3 billion in aid to Egypt, the Saudis announced that if U.S. aid to the regime was cut off, they'd be happy to step in and replace it.

In the end, of course, Mubarak stepped down and the revolution in Egypt achieved similar results to the revolution in Tunisia less than a month earlier. Saudi Arabia now has the unique reputation of being the regime which stuck by the most unpopular man in the region up to the very last minute. Mubarak was also a key member in an axis of "moderate" states, which is the typology used in Washington to describe allies like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen (and previously Egypt and Tunisia), and has little to do with the actual political temperament of the states. This "moderate" axis often had to deflect criticism for unpopular policies in support of U.S. objectives. Now, this collective has lost its most strategically important member in Mubarak, who projected the narrative and interests of the "moderates" in his policy toward Israel/Palestine, the conflict which has helped define politics in the Arab world for the better part of a century.

4. The Global Sectarians – From Islamophobes here in the United States who rejected pro-democracy demonstrations in Egypt arguing that this is the beginning of a new caliphate, to radical extremists who have targeted Christian minorities in the Middle East, the global sectarians who preach a narrative of tension between faiths in the region suffered a significant blow. Images of Egypt's Copts alongside Egypt's Muslims calling for a new regime put an end to the Mubarak-sponsored myth that a strong-armed dictator was desired for the implementation of secularism. While the secular Arab nationalism that swept the region in the early post-colonial period relied on Arab identity as its backbone, what we are seeing today even transcends that commonality. The unity of protestors of different faiths in Tahrir square showed that Christians and Muslims in the region had more in common than just an Arab or Egyptian identity; they also equally yearned for freedom and were ready to pay the ultimate price for it. This is not to say that religious minorities have no concerns about the future of Egypt, but this newly demonstrated unity can lay the foundations of a state with strong respect for civil and religious rights.

In Between

The United States – The jury is still out on whether the United States is a winner or a loser after the revolution in Egypt. President Obama made an important statement after Mubarak stepped down calling the events in Egypt "historic" and saying "The people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.... The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt." But despite President Obama's world-renowned oratory skills, it is not likely the people of Egypt will forget the United States' 30 years of support for the regime which repressed them, especially since tear-gas canisters labeled "Made in the USA" were just recently used against them.

The relationship between Egypt and the United States will depend on what happens from this day forward. The United States must not only be a friend and partner to Egypt, but it must also not interfere in Egypt's democracy and respect its new found independence if the new government is less aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests than the last one was. Only time will tell how the United States will respond when Egypt reaches that inevitable juncture.

* Yousef Munayyer is the Executive Director of the Jerusalem Fund and the Palestine Center.

WARNING: STRONG LANGUAGE

By Mantiq al-Tayr * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

1. The Egyptian people deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. To be more accurate, the Nobel Peace Prize is not good enough for the Egyptian people, but still it would be a great gesture and would make lots of Arab regimes even more uneasy than they are now. Fortunately for them, most likely rich white men will not want to bestow it upon that incredible people, but you can sign the petition here. I only wish the petition also called for stripping Obama of his.

2. Remember that New Years day bombing of the Coptic Church in Alexandria? 23 people were killed and the media were all to happy to report that "Mooselim extremists" had done the deed. In fact, some tiny faction of Palestinian morons known as JundAllah ("Assholes" in Arabic), is said to have done the deed, though they did deny it. The group, perhaps because they knew what really happened, or perhaps because they just are out and out assholes, said that it "praised" those who did do it. Back to that very shortly.

But hell, the Bullshit Broadcasting Network (BBC) pinned it on them, so it had to be true.

Interior Minister Habib al-Adli said Cairo had "decisive proof" that the Army of Islam carried out the attack in the northern Egyptian city.

And of course all of the Main $tream Media went along for the ride. I mean, if Interior Minister Habib al-Adli said it was true and that he had evidence, well then it had to be true. Mooselims did the killing, radical horrible Mooselims, the worst kind of Mooselims, Palestinian Mooselims.

Well, if these reports turn out to be true, al-Adli did have proof, all of the proof. How did he get it so fast? Because his subordinates planned and initiated the attack setting up the fall guys in the process. Yup, if the reports are true – and the current Egyptian government is now investigating prosecuting al-Adli for these murders – then we have an interesting story indeed. Again.

The story is that Adli's people planned the attack, got the patsies involved, killed one of them at the site of the bombing and then arranged to have the other two arrested at a meeting a few days later. Inexplicably, these latter two were let out of jail when Mubarak turned the thugs in Egypt's prisons loose in order to punish his people. They then went to the British embassy and reported what had happened. Could all be baloney, but . . .

And of course, if it turns out that the Egyptian government did orchestrate the killings, then we have yet another piece of evidence that no terrorist bombing can ever be taken at face value. None. Not one. But I'm sure most readers of this blog already know that anyway. You need evidence – and that evidence is pretty darn hard to get, especially when you have to rely on the MSM.

Oh, and Al-Adli is also being investigated for his role in killing innocent Egyptian demonstrators. Oh, and the link I am giving you for this is on the Muslim Brotherhood website for the benefit of all you "patriot" bloggers who are now acting like Egypt experts. (I am not an expert on Egypt, and claim only to know that lots of Egyptians seem like wonderful people.) Browse around the site. You expert Arabists who think you know something about Egypt, and you know who you are, you might want to try the MB's Arabic website too.

3. A while back a regular reader of this blog inquired about a website known as the "The Angry Arab News Service" asking if it were any good. I replied in the affirmative and recommended she keep visiting the site.

The Angry Arab (Dr. As'ad AbuKhalil) has been especially good the past three weeks or so with his commentary on and his links to the tremendous events in Egypt. I'm going to single out a couple of them here but I strongly recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about what's happened in Egypt to scroll through his site, especially "alternative" media bloggers so many of whom have recently anointed themselves as experts on Egypt and are filling the internet with articles and podcasts about what's been going on there. Oh, I forgot, I already mentioned them. Sorry. Back to the main idea.

First of all, despite some indications that the military leaders are hijacking the revolution, I want to point to Dr. AbuKhalil's post here where he lists 14 points to keep in mind as events unfold in Egypt. He's spot on. Give them a good read.

Oh, and I have to comment on point 14, which just might be my favorite point on this list. Dr. AbuKhalil informs us (no doubt correctly):

14) The vulgar singer, Sha'ban 'Abdul-Rahim who sang for Husni Mubarak will come out with songs against him.

As all the experts on Egypt out there on the internet know, did I mention that there sure as hell are a lot of experts on Egypt, out there? Oh, I'm digressing. Anyway, as all you experts on Egypt know, Abdul-Rahim's most famous song is "I hate Israel."

I can hear you all now, "Mantiq, that sounds like a great song? Is it on youtube so we can hear it?"

Well, yes it is and it exists in different versions. You can find one of them here. And listen carefully to the words and maybe you will understand why the Angry Arab says what he says. (The video has some great pics in it too.) My favorite part of the song is when he sings "I love Husni Mubarak because he is so smart, when he takes a step he really thinks things out." (Hey, I made it rhyme. )

I guess one could hope that Shaban was just being funny and put those words in to get past the censors.

Dr. AbuKhalil also links to this article which provides some interesting historical perspective. It is also well written. It compares the events of the past weeks with the 1919 revolt in Egypt. Read the whole thing. I provide you with two excerpts:

Ms. Ifdal Elsaket writes:

The anxious jubilation and the revolutionary vivacity that permeated the atmosphere of Egypt's cities were reminiscent of the events that unfolded during Egypt's popular uprising of 1919, when, for the first time in the history of the modern Egyptian state, thousands of ordinary Egyptians of all classes, men and women, young and old, Muslim and Christian, took to the streets to demand political change. In that year, after decades of British occupation, political discontent, and worsening economic conditions, the Egyptian nation rose – its people becoming an unwavering force to be reckoned with. . . .

Tellingly, as I write this, and in an expression of profound historical poignancy, one of Sayyid Darwish's song's "Biladi", popular with the protestors of 1919 and adopted in 1979 as the Egyptian national anthem, roars through the Square. At this moment, one can not help but think that perhaps, almost 100 years later, the aspirations of 1919 might finally be fulfilled.

I liked this post too. It's very short. So short even Shas Party members can pay attention to it. In fact, I'll quote it here in full.

"When you watch the Egyptian people, you have to say this: they are the most articulate people one knows. They never run out of words to say and they never pause for the right word. This is true for the educated and the less educated alike. Their journalists are very good with words, their politics aside. In some way that is also true of the Syrian people."

4. The all-knowing all-wise master informs us:

But here's the big question in Egypt now: Can this youth-led democracy movement take the power and energy it developed in Tahrir Square, which was all focused on one goal - getting rid of Hosni Mubarak - and turn it into a sustainable transition to democracy, with a new constitution, multiple political parties and a free presidential election in a timely fashion? Here, the movement's strength - the fact that it represented every political strain, every segment and class in Egyptian society - is also its weakness. It still has no accepted political platform or leadership.

Let me take a minute to point out the Arabic expert who wrote this that the movement's focus was not on one goal. They made this clear early on and they repeatedly stated their goals in the Arab and the international press. They also printed them and raised them on banners in Tahrir Square and elsewhere. Friedman, read this, for example.

Or try this one.

Okay, okay, you can read it in English here.

Also, for an excellent read on the upside of not having the kind of leadership the all-knowing all-wise one calls for, go here. Warning, it is written by an Egyptian who was there and the article has not been through the MSM filtering process so it can be published under David Sanger's name in the NYT: you might get a perspective that would disturb the Israeli lobby, Eric Cantor and Jane Harman.

5. I really did want to write about Mossad Jane Harman's resignation from Congress while poking great fun and an awful article about that resignation in the Jerusalem Washington New York Times Post (JEWNYTP), but I just don't have time. Hopefully in the next post.

6. I might have an interesting tidbit for regular readers of this blog if something I've been trying to arrange behind the scenes works out of the next day or so. I'll post it to the site quickly if it happens and put out a notice on twitter and facebook.

7. The Mermaid put this on her facebook page. Beautifully done. Join in with the Egyptians as they celebrate. The voice of freedom is calling you too.

* Mantiq al-Tayr is a blogger who is attempting to wake up other American citizens to the true dangers and challenges which face their country and is devoted to justice for the Palestinian people. Truth is his objective, satire is his tool. He also enjoys reading the Qur'an from time to time. See his website.

By Christopher King * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

I notice that the Americans are talking about "helping" and "guiding" Egypt to democracy. I would have thought that the Egyptian people have demonstrated that they are perfectly capable of dispensing with help from the United States. It's very doubtful that they look forward to more of the same.

The case of the Egyptian army is more complex. It has acted in its own interests as well as that of the country. It's common knowledge that the peace treaty with Israel has given its senior officers the leisure to turn their attention to making serious money from going into independent business ventures. That is not an insuperable problem. Their best interests are served by selling up, taking their money and getting out of politics or becoming full-time businessmen. Their country's best long-term interests lie in the economic development that democracy brings. It is to be hoped that they will see this and not delay.

This is where the United States has gone wrong. It should have followed its much-publicized ideals by fostering democracy in and giving economic aid to other countries rather than supporting dictators and exploiting their resources. All it has now is a military economy that is collapsing, and in other countries dubious stability rather than friends. Even in Britain the population is about to discover the cost of our stupid politicians' attachment to the US and its policies rather than thinking for themselves.

But we are reflecting on Egypt. President Obama began manipulating, under cover of his vague public ramblings from the time the Tahrir Square demonstrations began to look serious, when he despatched Frank Wisner to tell Mubarak to hold on. The president has now caught up with reality. In his inimitable oratorial style he congratulates the Egyptian people on their achievement and talks warmly of democracy, freedom and maintaining the US-Egyptian relationship. He has clearly been assured by his advisers that since large numbers of Egyptian officers were trained in the US and they love the military toys that the US presents to them, they will come out on the side of the US in the end.

Is this true, however? Whatever military gear is given to Egypt, Israel gets twice as much. The generals have complained about the unfairness of this but I am sure that they are thinking of another problem with these weapons as well.

The problem with the shiny toys that the Egyptian army is playing with lies in the question: do they work? True, they fly, roll along or explode as the case may be, according to one's expectations. They appear to work. The crunch test is: Will they work in a war with Israel?

Let's think along with the generals. We know that the United States is committed to Israel. Nevertheless, it gives hi-tech weaponry to Egypt whose population sympathizes with the Palestinians, dislikes Israel and has fought several wars with it. The generals might be willing to compromise a little with Israel but at bottom they're patriots, not traitors. One never knows what the future will bring. From an American perspective, why take a risk with a country that is actually hostile to its protegé and only maintains a peace treaty through bribery?

Now, all modern military equipment, radios, missiles, tanks, aircraft etc contain microchips, software or both. The solution to maintaining the security of its protegé, or indeed its own forces in the Middle East, is to install trojan (hidden and malicious) circuits in microchips or programming in software that can be activated by the US or Israel at will. These would have the function of disabling the item of equipment in some manner. It's very difficult, if not impossible to reverse-engineer or analyse everything a complex microchip or program can do, particularly if certain functions are designed to stay hidden.

The British military had problems in getting information from the US on the programming of its Trident strategic nuclear missiles which has both the missile and warhead firing system made in the US. I suspect that it was for this reason. Well, it's logical. The US doesn't want its weapons turned against it. That's the way they think – cover all threats.

These are more than theoretical musings. In a close parallel case, during the 1982 Falklands war three British ships were severely damaged with high casualties from Argentinian aircraft and missiles supplied by its European Union neighbour and ally, France. The French then began marketing Exocet missiles as "battle tested" and the British were very unhappy. Nor had the British a chance to use their Exocets. Even thirty years ago the French supplied electronic information to enable the British to defeat Argentinian Exocets, but only after they had been used.

In 1987 during the Iran-Iraq war an Iraqi pilot attacked the frigate USS Stark with an Exocet, inflicting heavy damage and 37 deaths. I think that the Americans will have noticed this problem. This is why they hate the idea of Iran obtaining the Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile system. They can't control it and it will actually do what it's supposed to. You can see why they push their weaponry to NATO and any country that'll grab the shiny, easy option rather than developing its own defence industries. It's not just to boost jobs in the US. The Israelis worked this out years ago.

Egyptian generals are probably wondering not only whether their present equipment works as they expect but also, given the demonstrated awkwardness of Egypt's population, will future gifted gadgets work in a brawl? The last thing an Egyptian pilot wants when he's serious is his aircraft and missiles taking on minds of their own or his radio playing Cairo's top tunes.

Now that I think of it, the US is selling its hardware at great cost to the Saudis, Iraqis and other Gulf countries. Perhaps it gives guarantee certificates that this stuff will work if they want to back their friends against Israeli attack, or it will refund the cost?

If the United States doesn't trust the British despite the traitorous prostrations of Anthony Blair and the current sorry lot who are little better, will they trust despotic governments with Muslim populations that they consider to be just waiting for an Islamo-fascist mullah to stage a revolution? It's a fact that no-one in the Middle East likes the United States – even people who take its bribes. Particularly them, perhaps.

So what's a serious general to do? Accept a gift of sparkling gear that turns out to be junk when needed or shop around? Hezbollah, the Pashtun and Vietcong have all demonstrated that simple equipment can do wonders. It's a matter of training and commitment. Better a rifle that works than a fancy F-16 jet that doesn't. Perhaps the US can convince its customers that its clever gear will kill Israelis, Americans or anyone else that it's pointed at just as effectively as it will the people they happen to dislike at the moment. That's what a rifle does and if it were my 40 billion dollars that I recall the Saudis are spending, that's the test I would want my purchases to pass. How, I don't know. It's not my problem but unless the stuff will perform in all circumstances it isn't very good value.

Egyptian generals will do as they wish of course, but if I were one I wouldn't buy an American missile or even accept one as a gift.

* Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.

Cartoon by R.J. Matson

By Stephen Lendman * | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

What's unfolding looks different than what protesters demand. World headlines partly reflect it, mostly outside America, especially on US television reporting an illusion of change, when, in fact, coup d'etat rule is in charge, headed by authoritarian generals used to giving, not taking orders.

On February 13, Al Jazeera's said, "Egypt army tries to clear Tahrir," adding:

Scuffles broke out "as soldiers tried to remove activists from the epicenter of Egypt's uprising...." Hundreds courageously remained, saying they won't leave until "more of their demands are met."

As a result, "(S)oldiers shoved pro-democracy protesters aside to force a path for traffic to start flowing through Tahrir Square for the first time in more than two weeks."

Tents were removed. Al Jazeera's James Bays reported "flashpoint" confrontations, saying:

"I think it reflects a bigger problem, that the military believes that now Mubarak is out, it's time for stability. But some of the protesters think not enough has been done yet. They don't want to clear that square until the army (is) handed over to a civilian government."

As a result, they threaten more rallies if Egypt's ruling Supreme Military Council ignores their demands. Protest leader Safwat Hegazi spoke for others saying:

"If the army does not fulfill (them), our uprising and its measures will return stronger."

They demand:

• -- Mubarak's cabinet and all remnants of his regime ousted, especially top officials like Omar Suleiman, a hated man they'll never accept in any capacity;
• -- an immediate end to Egypt's Emergency Law, a harsh police state measure since 1981;
• -- dissolution of its parliament in place after rigged late 2010 elections;
• -- a transitional five-member presidential council made up of four civilians and one military person to prepare for free, fair and open democratic elections in nine months or sooner;
• -- a new constitution;
• -- media freedom;
• -- abolition of military and emergency courts;
• -- free formation of political parties, and more.

It's not happening, a cabinet spokesman saying no major reshuffle will occur, adding:

"The shape of the government will stay until the process of transformation is done in a few months, then a new government will be appointed based on the democratic principles in place."

A senior army officer announced on state television that the military will "guarantee the peaceful transition of power in the framework of a free, democratic system which allows an elected, civilian power to govern the country to build a democratic, free state."

Take those comments with a grain of salt as well as most other official statements, concealing what's likely planned. Nonetheless, on February 13, Al Jazeera said military officials dissolved parliament, suspended the Constitution, and announced September elections, giving no other specifics.

What it means remains to be seen under militarized coup d'etat rule. It assures no democracy as long as it lasts and none afterwards if likely manipulated elections follow, leaving generals in charge behind the scenes.

Military rulers also pledged to honor "all regional and international obligations and treaties." That one's likely true to avoid confrontations with their Washington paymaster and Israel after nearly four decades of peace.

Al Jazeera's Sherine Tadros, however, said questions remain over how civilian rule transition will occur, quoting one activist saying:

"I'm worried about the future. Nobody knows what's coming. We need to rebuild our country and economy because we are venturing into the unknown."

Indeed, they've got great reason to worry because what's planned won't tolerate real democracy, only its facade as in America, Israel, and most other states. For sure expect none in Egypt and other Arab countries controlled by imperial Washington.

BBC's top story headlined, "Egypt's army struggles to clear Tahir Square protesters," saying:

"There is a tense stand-off in Cairo's Tahrir Square as protesters who have camped there for 20 days thwart army effort to clear the area."

Moreover, thousands more joined them after military police head, Mohamed Ibrahim Moustafa Ali, said, "We do not want any protesters to sit in the square after today."

As a result, anger grew as they saw "hundreds of policemen (enter) the square," chanting: "It's a new Egypt, the people and the police are one." Crowds chanted back: "Get out, get out!" Scuffles then broke out, BBC's Paul Danahar saying:

"There was growing anger in the square as more soldiers began slowly but forcefully to squeeze the protesters out of the areas they had been holding for weeks. Then a roar went up from the crowd as they realized hundreds of policemen had entered the square," the same ones who attacked, gassed, beat, and arrested them days earlier. "There was a tense stand-off as the two sides confronted each other before the police" moved back and left.

Haaretz featured a Reuter story headlined, "Thousands flood Cairo square, defying army bid to quell protests," saying:

Using loadspeakers, protesters said: "They must respond to our demands," (not) remove us from the square." They explained that some of their leaders were detained, dozens more taken to an army holding area near Egypt's museum.

New head of state Field Marshall Mohamed Hussein Tantawi called for an immediate return to normality. Mubarak's appointed Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq said:

"The first priority, no question about it, is security. An equally important priority is to provide the elements needed for the daily life of citizens."

Protesters responded saying:

"There is no enmity between the people and armed forces....We ask you not to attack our sons. This is not the (behavior) of the armed forces. This is a peaceful protest. We demand that the armed forces release all our sons that have been arrested in Tahrir."

"We stood by the army in their revolution (the 1952 coup toppling King Farouk). They need to stand with us in ours. The goal was never just to get rid of Mubarak. The system is totally corrupt and we won't go until we see some real reforms," one protester adding, "I am going to be buried in Tahrir. I am here for my children. Egypt is too precious to walk away now."

Another said, "I was going to leave today, but after what the military has done, the millions will be back again. The corrupt system still stands. It has gone back to using the only thing it understands - force. If we leave, they won't respond to our demands."

London's Guardian, Telegraph, Independent and other newspapers featured the same story about protesters refusing to leave.

On February 12, Robert Fisk's London Independent Article headlined, "A tyrant's exit. A Nation's joy," saying:

"All day, the demonstrators had been telling the soldiers that they were brothers. Well, we shall see." Assuming power, "a series of contradictory (military) statements (followed), indicat(ing) that Egypt's field marshals, generals and brigadiers were competing for power in the ruins of Mubarak's regime."

Israel wants Suleiman. Head of state Field Marshall Tantawi wants his chief of staff, General Sami Anan, to handle day-to-day affairs.

Pro-democracy supporters "are thus now less important than the vicious infighting within the army." In fact, Egypt's military high command was part of Mubarak's regime. His vice president, prime minister, deputy prime minister, defense minister, and interior minister were all generals. So was Mubarak.

"Sadly," said Fisk, "Egypt is the army and the army is Egypt....It therefore wishes to control...." Its rhetoric stresses normalcy, leaving affairs of state to them to establish reforms. In fact, they intend "divid(ing) up the ministries of a new government," to solidify military control, whatever new faces emerge.

Fisk recalled celebratory outbreaks after WW I ended. Everyone "burst out singing." It was "genuine and deserved. Yet that peace led to further immense suffering." Unless pro-democracy advocates stay vigilant and keep protesting, expect weeks of sustained courage again ending in tears, Fisk saying:

Rhetorically, (t)he army has decided to protect the people. But who will curb the power of the army," hungry to get power portfolios now that they're up for grabs.

AP headlined, "Protesters press for voice in Egyptian democracy," saying:

After 30 years under Mubarak, they're making demands they want met. Egypt's military now runs the country, its future to "be shaped by three powers: the military, the protesters, and the sprawling autocratic infrastructure of Mubarak's regime" still in place, including "the bureaucracy, the police, state media and parts of the economy."

Despite promising change, "elderly generals are no reformers, and their move to push out Mubarak may have been more to ensure the survival of a ruling system the military has (controlled) since a 1952 army coup." The powerful, "deeply secretive military has substantial economic interests, running industries and businesses that it will likely seek to preserve."

Response from America's Media

Overseas headlines in part, at least, reflect reality, what's largely suppressed at home, reporting pretense of a new nonexistant dawn. Front page news in The New York Times, early Washington Post editions, Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune reported nothing about Tahrir Square clashes. Instead, The Times headlined, "Military Offers Assurances to Egypt and Neighbors," saying:

"As a new era dawned in Egypt on Saturday, the army leadership sought to reassure Egyptians and the world that it would shepherd a transition to civilian rule and honor" all international commitments and obligations. Though protesters want democratic change, they "embraced their new reality with humor, mild arguments and celebrations," quoting one of their leaders, Amr Hamzawy, saying the military's tone has been "very, very positive."

A later Times Kareem Fahim/J David Goodman article headlined, "Egypt's Military Dissolves Parliament; Calls for Vote," saying:

"The announcement went a long way toward meeting the demands of protesters," when, in fact, specifics are absent, most demands haven't been met, Mubarak regime officials remain, and militarized coup d'etat control is in charge. Four words only mentioned protests: "(P)ockets of protests continued," the article stressing "normalcy return(ing) to the capital...."

The Los Angeles Times reported, "Tents give way to traffic in Tahrir Square," reflected "the military's determination to restore normalcy to the nation's capital."

The Chicago Tribune headlined, "A reborn Egypt gets back to business....tingling with freedom, look(ing) ahead," quoting one protester, Ragab Abdou, saying: "I woke up with the idea that we can do something. Democracy. Freedom. Do something we haven't done for 30 years." They haven't done it now either, an explanation the Tribune omitted.

A later Washington Post edition headlined, "Egyptian soldiers clear protesters from Tahrir Square, as pockets of tension bubble up in Cairo," saying:

"Some weary demonstrators evacuated voluntarily. Others stood their ground or scuffled with soldiers," implying they might be agitators, not committed pro-democracy fighters.

The Wall Street Journal.com also headlined, "Egypt's Military Moves to Clear Tahrir Square," saying:

It wants "to restore order after weeks of mass demonstrations," quoting Egypt's new military rulers pledging "a peaceful transition of power in the framework of a free and democratic system." No timetable or specifics were given.

For now, entrenched military rule will "oversee a political transformation" in its own image far different from democratic change. Savvy protesters fear it, vowing to continue struggling until their demands are met. They're far from being free and won't be without sustained mass grassroots pressure, the only way change ever comes, never from the top down anywhere.

* Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon.