Al-Jazeerah History  
	 
	
	
	Archives  
	 
	
	
	
	
	Mission & Name   
	 
	
	
	
	
	Conflict Terminology   
	 
	
	Editorials  
	 
	
	
	
	
	
	Gaza Holocaust   
	 
	
	
	Gulf War   
	 
	
	Isdood  
	 
	
	
	Islam   
	 
	
	
	News   
	 
	
	
	News Photos 
	  
	 
	
	
	Opinion  
	
	
	Editorials 
	  
	 
	
	
	
	
	US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)   
	 
	
	
	www.aljazeerah.info
	  
      
       
      
        
        
     | 
     | 
    
       
	World Revolutions:  
	A Human Spring Without Results  
	By Uri Avnery 
	Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, July 11, 2013 
	   A Human Spring   LET ME come back to the 
	story about Zhou Enlai, the Chinese Communist leader. When asked what he 
	thought about the French Revolution, he famously answered: “It’s too early 
	to say.”   This was considered a typical piece of ancient Chinese 
	wisdom – until somebody pointed out that Zhou did not mean the revolution of 
	1789, but the events of May 1968, which happened not long before the 
	interview in question.   Even now it may be too early to judge that 
	upheaval, when students tore up the cobblestones of Paris, confronted the 
	brutal police and proclaimed a new era. It was an early forerunner of what 
	is happening today all over the world.    QUESTIONS ABOUND. Why? Why 
	now? Why in so many totally different countries? Why in Brazil, Turkey and 
	Egypt at the same time?    We know how it started. In the souk of 
	Tunis, of all places. I have been there many times, when Yasser Arafat was 
	staying in that city. The market always struck me as a happy place, full of 
	noise, eager shopkeepers, haggling tourists and local men with jasmine 
	flowers behind their ears.   It was there that a policewoman 
	confronted a fruit vendor and overturned his cart. He was mortally insulted, 
	set himself on fire and set in motion a process that now involves many 
	millions of people around the world.   The Tunis example was taken up 
	by the Egyptian masses, who assembled in Tahrir Square and eventually 
	overturned their dictator. Then it was our turn, and almost half a million 
	Israelis went out into the streets to protest the price of cottage cheese. 
	Then there were upheavals in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and other Arab states, 
	collectively known as the Arab Spring. In the US, the Occupy Wall Street 
	movement staged its own Tahrir Square in New York. And now millions are 
	demonstrating in Turkey and Brazil, and Egypt is aflame again. One may add 
	Iran and other places.   How did this come about? How does it work? 
	What is the hidden mechanism?   And especially: why at this point in 
	time?    I CAN think of two interrelated phenomena  in 
	contemporary life that make the uprisings possible and probable: 
	television and the social media.   Television informs viewers 
	in Kamchatka about events in Timbuktu within minutes. The huge 
	demonstrations in Istanbul’s Taksim Square could be followed in real time by 
	people in Rio de Janeiro.    Once upon a time, it took weeks for 
	people in Piccadilly Circus in London to hear about events in the Place de 
	la Concorde in Paris. After the battle of Waterloo, the Rothschilds made 
	their killing by using messenger pigeons. In 1848, when revolution spread 
	from Paris throughout Europe, it took its time, too.   Not any more. 
	Brazilian youngsters saw what was happening in Gezi Park, Istanbul, and 
	asked themselves: why not here? They saw that determined young men and women 
	could withstand water cannon, tear gas and batons, and felt that they could 
	do it, too.     The other instrument is facebook, Twitter and the 
	other “social media”. Five young men sitting in a Cairo café and talking 
	about the situation could decide to launch an online petition for the 
	removal of the incumbent president, and within a few days tens of millions 
	of citizens signed. Never before in history was such a thing possible, or 
	even imaginable.   This is a new form of direct democracy. People 
	don’t have to wait anymore for the next elections, which may be years away. 
	They can act immediately, and when the groundswell is powerful enough, it 
	can develop into a tsunami.    HOWEVER, REVOLUTIONS are not made by 
	technologies, but by people. What is it that arouses so many different 
	people in so many different cultures to do the same thing at the same time? 
	   For example, the rise of religious fundamentalism. 
	In recent decades, this has happened in several countries and with several 
	religions. Jewish fundamentalism is setting up settlements in the Occupied 
	West Bank and threatening Israeli democracy. All over the Arab world and 
	many other Muslim countries, Islamic fundamentalism raises its head, causing 
	havoc. In the US, evangelical fundamentalism has created the Tea Party and 
	is dragging the Republican Party to the extreme right, much against its own 
	interest.   I don’t know about other religions, but there are news 
	stories about Buddhists attacking Muslims in several countries (e.g. in 
	Myanmar- Editor). Buddhists? I always thought that this was an exceptionally 
	peaceful creed!    How to explain these simultaneous and parallel 
	symptoms? Commentators use the German philosophical expression, Zeitgeist 
	(“spirit of the times”).  This explains everything and nothing.    
	So is the Zeitgeist behind the upheavals now? Don’t ask me.    THERE 
	ARE many curious similarities between the mass revolts in different 
	countries.   They are all made by young people of the 
	so-called middle class. Not by the poor, not by the rich. Poor 
	people do not make revolutions – they are too busy trying to feed their 
	children. The Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was not made by the workers and 
	peasants. It was made by disaffected intellectuals, many of them Jewish. 
	  When you see a group of demonstrators in a newspaper picture, you do 
	not know at first glance whether they are Egyptians, Israelis, Turks, 
	Iranians or Americans. They all belong to the same social class. Young 
	people alienated by a heartless globalization, confronted by a labor market 
	that no longer offers the bright prospects they expect, university students 
	for whose skills there is little demand. People with jobs, but who find it 
	hard to “finish the month”’ as we say in Hebrew.   The immediate 
	causes are varied. Israelis demonstrated against the price of cottage cheese 
	and new apartments. Turks protest against the plan to turn a popular 
	Istanbul park into a commercial project. Brazilians rise up against a small 
	increase in bus fares. Egyptians are now protesting against the efforts of 
	politicized religion to take over the state.   But at root,
	all these protests express a common 
	disgust with politics and politicians, with a power elite
	that is seen as remote from ordinary 
	people, with the immense power of a tiny group of the ultra-rich, 
	with a barely understood globalization.        
	     THE SAME mechanism that makes these revolutions possible also 
	produces their outstanding weakness.    The model was already apparent 
	in the Paris events of May 1968. These started with a student protest which 
	was joined by millions of workers. There was no organization, no common 
	ideology, no plan, no overall leadership. Activists gathered in a theater, 
	debated endlessly, giving voice to all sorts of possible and impossible 
	ideas. In the end there were no concrete results.   There was a 
	certain spirit. Claude Lanzmann, the writer and director of the monumental 
	film Shoah, once described it to me this way: The students were burning 
	cars. So every evening I spent a lot of time finding a secure place for my 
	car. Until I suddenly said to myself: What the hell! What do I need a car 
	for? Let them burn it!   This spirit lingered for some time. But life 
	went on, and the great event was soon just a memory.   This may happen 
	again now. Again the same thing is happening everywhere: No organization, no 
	leadership, no program, no ideology.   The very fact that everyone has 
	a voice on facebook seems to make it easier to agree on “against” than on 
	“for”.  The young protesters are anarchist by nature. They abhor 
	leaders, organizations, political parties, hierarchies, programs, 
	ideologies.    You can call a demonstration on facebook, but you 
	cannot hammer out a joint ideology that way. But, as Lenin once remarked, 
	without a political ideology there is no political action. And he was an 
	expert on the art of revolution.   There is a great danger that all 
	these huge demonstrations will fade away  some day – Zeitgeist again – 
	without leaving anything behind, except some memories.   This has 
	already happened in Israel. The mass demonstrations had some influence on 
	this year’s elections, but the new parties are indistinguishable from the 
	old ones. New politicians have taken the place of old politicians. But 
	nothing real has changed.  Neither on the national nor on the social 
	level.    IN ANY democracy, real change can only take place through 
	new political parties which enter parliament and make new laws. For this you 
	need political leaders – now, in the era of TV, more than ever. It is not 
	enough to generate a lot of steam – you need an engine to make the steam do 
	useful work.   The tragedy in Egypt - a country I love – demonstrates 
	this perfectly. The revolution overthrew the dictatorship, but in the 
	elections that followed, the revolutionaries were unable to unite, create a 
	joint political force, elect leaders. Victory was snatched by the Muslim 
	Brotherhood, who were well organized with a solid leadership.   The 
	brotherhood has failed. Power, after decades of persecution, went to their 
	heads. They threw away caution. Instead of building a new state on 
	moderation, compromise and inclusion, they could not wait. So they may lose 
	all.   The democratic revolutionaries have yet to prove that they are 
	able to lead a country – in Egypt or anywhere else. They may yet launch a 
	world-wide Human Spring. Or they may leave nothing behind, except a vague 
	longing.   It’s up to them.           
       | 
     | 
     
      
      
      
      
     |