An alliance in international relations means a concord or a pledge between two or more powers to reach common objectives and interests, or to confront a shared danger. Since the first signs of the Arab Spring three and half ago, an unofficial and unannounced international concord came into being for the purpose of opposing cries for change and renewal expressed by millions across the Arab World.

The latest Israeli aggression on Gaza allowed the same alliance to re-appear, which had never vanished, this time targeting the Palestinian resistance. This alliance against Arab democracy and resistance includes states and powers that have different intellectual and ideological approaches. It comprises major countries, Arab states, traditional political elites, capital owners, in addition to Israel.

The United States, as the key representative of the major countries in this alliance, refused Arab democracy in words and deeds. Washington begrudged, and still does, the Arab's right to enjoy the same democracy which citizens of free countries around the world enjoy.

The Egyptian case is an obvious one of American hypocrisy. The standpoint of the Obama administration is not new, for more than three decades Washington pretended to support the aspirations of the Egyptian people for freedom and democracy and at the same time backed an autocratic dictatorship. It is understandable that Washington prefers dealing with Arab dictatorships, which is far easier than tackling elected governments that are accountable to their people.

Washington is hostile to Palestinian resistance, for since the beginning of the aggression on Gaza, the American administration, consistent with its history, adopted a standpoint that is in total support for Israel. The American media is brimful of a vision similar to the one the administration believes in; it is based on Israel's defence against unprovoked attack. And it neither mentions anything about the occupation nor people's right to resist the occupier of their land.

The alliance also includes Arab states whose rulers are well-known for not believing in democracy in theory, content or practice. These rulers exploit their wealth to support efforts to strangle Arab democracy and invest billions of dollars in order to thwart the emerging democratic attempts in Egypt or Tunisia or any other country that becomes acquainted with a real democratic path.

The rulers of these countries consider Arab democracy an existential threat to their thrones and regimes. The latest aggression on the Gaza Strip showed that these rulers are antagonistic towards the Palestinian resistance as well. News reports revealed secret meetings between Arab Gulf rulers and Israeli ministers before the launch of the aggression. Moreover, the presence of Mohammed Dahlan in Abu Dhabi and the desire, in his ascension to the Palestinian Authority presidency, to set the scene for an agreement with Israel is a good reason for those rulers to adopt options aiming to destroying the resistance option.

As for Israel, it would be the first to be harmed by Arab democracy, especially the democracy of its big neighbour Egypt. Israel was actively present at discussions in Washington three years ago concerning the revolution in Egypt. Israel and its lobby expressed apprehensions regarding the possibility of an Egyptian government antagonistic to Israel. Israel demanded that Washington not forsake president Hosni Mubarak, their mutual strategic ally. Israel believes a democratic Egypt equals a strong Egypt and it is better for her to deal with a strong ruler who neither believes in democracy and freedom nor in the Palestinian resistance option.

Israel seeks to destroy the Palestinian resistance option through diffusing despair in the souls of the Palestinian people by tarnishing the resistance fighters. This approach is promoted vehemently in the framework of what I call the "Ramallah Option". This option is based on showing the luxurious life accompanied with good economic development in the city of Ramallah, with the media focusing on the high consumption rates and the availability of goods and commodities in comparison with Gaza. Of course, Israel attempts to blame the hardships of life in Gaza on the resistance not the occupation policies.

As for the connection between the Egyptian and Arab economic elite and the United States, it is a contributing element making it difficult to achieve any real change. The businessmen, who benefitted and are still benefitting from policies that allowed them to enter the American market whether as exporters via the Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZ) or as importers serving the significant interests of American wheat producers, have stable interests and they represent a strong lobby against any popular desire for change. This segment is antagonistic towards resistance. This is demonstrated via media diffusing hostile messages about the Palestinian resistance.

It is not a coincidence that the aforementioned powers move singly or collectively to achieve certain objectives. This alliance appears quite obviously in the American capital through promoting the unreadiness of Arabs for democracy on one hand, and tarnishing the image of Palestinian resistance on the other. The lobbies and some Arab embassies work in earnest towards this aim backed by the Zionist and business lobbies.

Finally, it should be remembered that what was mentioned does not mean that all the resistance and its backers are democratic powers and also it does not mean that all the democratic powers are supporters of the resistance. However, the connection between them exists due to reasons related to serving the interests of small segments of the Arab population at the expense of the great majority of people.



https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/108628.aspx