PFLP stands beside the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions as great Arab popular movements

Comrade Jamal: The Front stands beside the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions as great Arab popular movements

Comrade Jamal: The Front stands beside the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions as great Arab popular movements

Comrade Hussein al-Jamal, member of the Central Committee of the Gaza branch of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine said on February 2, 2011 that "the Front will never stand aside or claim neutrality toward popular revolution or the national liberation movements in the Arab world. Our Front stands beside all of the Arab people, and especially the peoples of Egypt and Tunisia at this time of their great revolutions."

In an interview with Gaza-based Voice of the People radio, Comrade Jamal said that the "clock of the Arab world will not go backwards, but instead forwards toward freedom and emancipation from oppression," adding that the victory of the Arab revolutions would deal a severe blow to Israel and the Zionist movement.

He noted that Israel is currently confused and carefully watching events in Egypt, and warned of attempts by the state meant to subvert the popular revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Comrade Jamal said further that the common factor of these revolutions is their popular base and origin, and have a fundamentally progressive and leftist character.
 

Comrade Jamal related the revolutionary Arab movements to the Palestinian cause, saying that the Arab masses are raising slogans against Zionist occupation and normalization with the Israeli enemy as part of the national, patriotic, progressive direction of the popular uprising. He said that the basis for the revolution are the popular classes, seeking freedom from oppression, social justice, rights and dignity. He recalled the call for national dignity inspired by Mohammed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street vendor who burned himself alive in protest, sparking the Tunisian revolution, alongside the call of the Egyptian people for national dignity, and recalling the involvement of Palestinian workers in 1987 in demanding their dignity that sparked the Intifada.

Comrade Jamal warned against any attempt to suppress or divert the popular Intifada in Egypt and Tunisia in order to serve U.S. interests in the region. It has been clear from the beginning that the U.S. and Israel have been put on edge and greatly alarmed by the demonstrations, he said, as they represent mass rejection of U.S.-imposed, Israel-accommodating dictators.

He especially praised the involvement of Egyptian youth in the revolution, including the young leadership of the April 6 movement, pointing to the role of youth in a revolutionary moment, representing the present and the future.

In Lebanon, Comrade Marwan Abdel-Al, member of the Political Bureau of the PFLP spoke at a mass meeting in solidarity with the people of Egypt and Tunisia in Sidon. The hall filled with crowds of citizens, trade union activists, Palestinian organizations, and Lebanese progressive groups. Comrade Abdel-Al praised the revolutionary movements and said that Egypt's youth today are breaking the chains of the future and of history, and also lifting the restraints placed upon the Palestinian people and the Palestinian cause.

He added that today in Tahrir Square the voice of Egypt is being heard and the spirit of Gamal Abdel Nasser appearing once more. He recalled Nasser's words that "what was taken by force can only be restored by force," as a seed-word of resistance planted in the generations that have come since and endured so much injustice through the years of dictatorship and defeat. He said that it was clear that through all these years, the people of Egypt have never accepted injustice, and that the limits of the revolution do not end at ending dictatorship and corruption. Comrade Abdel-Al noted that the Egyptian people and popular movements have always rejected normalization with Israel despite all attempts to force it upon them through trade and politics.

Furthermore, he praised the Egyptian and Tunisian activists who long stood against the regimes, enduring exile, deportation, torture and imprisonment, saying that their



long years of work are bearing fruit today; he noted that the Arab regimes had rejected all calls for political social and economic reform and are now facing a people committed to change and true justice. He noted that "regime change" had been attempted to be imposed by the U.S., forcing separation and division upon the Arab people, which had always been rejected, but an entirely new type of regime change was being created today by the popular masses in the streets of Egypt and Tunisia, who were establishing new levels of unity in ridding themselves of their U.S.-sponsored dictatorships.

Dr. Osama Sa'ad, president of the Nazareth Popular Organization, also spoke at the event, saluting the Arab people and noting that this will lead to the collapse of regimes based on dependency, corruption and exploitation. Corrupt regimes, he said, will not survive in the face of the will for change among the Arab revolutionary people. He noted that victory in Egypt will change the face of the Arab world, prompting terror and alarm in Washington and Tel Aviv, and warned against all attempts and conspiracies to end the Intifada early and push people to accept superficial change while retaining the existing character of the regime.

===========================================================

Egyptian Unrest: Dynasty, Devolution, or Revolution?

Harlan Ullman
February 02, 2011

Is what is happening in Egypt today, and Tunisia earlier, the harbinger of viral unrest with consequences akin to the French Revolution of 1789 or the Russian Revolution of 1917 but in real time?

Or, is this unrest a localized protest over the continuing absence of jobs, food and political inclusion that so far lacks an ideological motivation and is unlikely to spread throughout the region?

Will these protests lead to devolution of power in some meaningful form including President Hosni Mubarak's resignation or to a real Egyptian revolution? And will greater "democratization" actually address the basic economic and political causes of these protests and revolts in Egypt?

So far, the answers are in the category of what former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called "unknown unknowns."

Before drawing grand conclusions about what this unrest may mean, context is important. First, suppose Mubarak had moved for real reforms years ago with a more open government. Would economic conditions such as poverty and lack of jobs been better, worse or about the same?

Second, of the external powers, only the United States has visibly and publicly interjected itself into Egyptian politics. The Obama administration has been walking a fine line between supporting an old ally and democratic forces that could become hijacked by well-organized radicals. But how much influence can America exert and what is its track record in fashioning outcomes favorable to its interests and policies in similar circumstances of public protest?

Third, history matters. Unlike the West, neither the Middle East nor its majority Islamic religion has a democratic tradition. Dynasties, not ballot boxes, have ruled. And unlike Christianity, Islam hasn't undergone either a Martin Luther reformation or a Renaissance. Will these differences count in the 21st century? And, more recently, we cannot recreate the mistakes following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in early 2003 and the failure to plan for the post-war. What happens in Egypt for the long term will matter more than simply Mubarak stepping down.

Regarding the economic and political forces that have precipitated this wave of Egyptian protests, it isn't self-evident that democratic rule in Egypt would have sufficiently improved living standards to quell public reaction. Egypt remains a poor and in many places an overpopulated country. Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf states have the resources. Yet, revolutionary democratic change given the specter of radical Islam is a potential nightmare.

America's record in affecting potentially revolutionary events, since winning its own, has generally been poor. During the Cold War, America supported autocratic anti-Communist leaders not democrats. King Farouk of Egypt, the Shah of Iran and Fernando Marcos among others were exhibits A as well as Vietnam.

The implosion of the Soviet Union that led to a Europe whole and free (with a few exceptions) allowed long-established democratic roots to take hold. That isn't true in the Middle East where there is no democratic tradition and dynasties have ruled for centuries.

Egyptians' access to food, jobs, enfranchisement and a say in government are driving the opposition's protests -- as intolerable treatment and denial of basic rights of Englishmen drove America's revolutionaries in 1775. Ideology is largely missing in Egyptian protests -- remarkable because Egypt has been the font for much of Islamic radicalism and for personalities who have advanced and are advancing this case for revolution.

Mubarak has been obstinate and, unlike the Shah but like Iran's ruling "mullahocracy" today, has and will use some level of force to contain public demonstrations and protests or to allow chaos to sap public outrage. Moral suasion won't work. And U.S. President Barack Obama cannot persuade Mubarak with brilliant argument or awe him into submission by personal intimidation.

Indeed, aggressive pursuit of human rights demands by this administration will almost certainly backfire in Egypt. And Mubarak's fallback position will be to relinquish power to his supporters in the new government that will hardly guarantee greater democracy or to elections that will assure reform.

As in Afghanistan, the United States has no good options in Egypt. The one fragile tool the United States has is economic leverage through the $1.5 billion sent to Egypt annually since the Camp David peace accords with Israel in 1979. And that leverage is weak.
 

America's political debate over what to or not to do isn't relevant because we lack the tools to alter outcomes and haven't found the means to create a countervailing or leveraging strategy that will influence events in Egypt.

For one of the few times in its capacity as a superpower, the United States must keep its own counsel. Domestic reaction from left and right will be intense and it was domestic politics that no doubt persuaded Obama to inform the public on nationwide television of his conversation with Mubarak just minutes before.

Maybe it's time to speak more softly whether or not we have a big or any stick while conjuring up contingency plans from B to Z with great haste because what comes post-Mubarak will determine ultimately success or failure for Egypt.

Harlan Ullman is Senior Advisor at the Atlantic Council, Chairman of the Killowen Group that advises leaders of government and business, and a frequent advisor to NATO. This article was syndicated by UPI.