Why Arab reactionary regimes do imperialism’s bidding

WW interviews Palestinian Marxist Dr. Adel Samara, part 1

By Joyce Chediac

The corporate media in the imperialist countries have much to say about the Arab countries and developments in the Middle East. Rarely, however, do these media permit people from the Middle Eastern countries to speak for themselves.

Recently Workers World interviewed Dr. Adel Samara, a Palestinian Marxist from the West Bank city of Ramallah. Dr. Samara is the author of more than 15 books on the relationship of forces in the Middle East, and editor-in chief of Kana’an, a quarterly magazine (kanaanonline.org). His view was very different from the views covered in the New York Times or Fox TV.

Dr. Adel Samara WW photo

Arab comprador regimes created by imperialism

Asked why the Egyptian government is aiding Israel and the U.S. in the siege and blockade of Gaza, Samara gave a history of how most Arab regimes were actually set up by imperialist powers to be dependants of imperialism and agents of reaction in the Middle East.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty between the main imperialist powers, he said, “divided up the area, fragmenting it into small countries and put a king in every place. Weak and poor aristocratic elements agreed” to play this role and be financed by imperialism. “These rulers were unable to last without support of the imperialists. And they competed among themselves.”

This has led to a situation where “the imperialist powers, especially the U.S., pretend democracy while supporting the worst regimes in the history of the Arab nation.” Imperialism does this in an attempt “to prove there is no Arab nationality — this regime fights that one — ... and because the imperialists know that an increase in Arab unity won’t be good for Israel.”

Samara explained that from the time that the World Zionist Organization began meeting in 1897, and when Britain backed a Zionist state in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, it was clear the Zionists had plans for a pro-imperialist state in Palestine. Yet, “In 1948 and earlier, Arab regimes allowed Jews from Arab countries to go to Palestine. Arab regimes knew that Jews would be soldiers for a Jewish state in Palestine. Arab regimes contributed [to this state].”

Arab armies which fought for Palestine in 1948 staged revolts later

It is well known that in the 1948 war and campaign of Zionist-imperialist terrorism that erased Palestine from the map and replaced it with Israel, the Arab armies were defeated. Not so well known is the fact that “the 1948 Arab armies together were smaller than the Zionist army. The Arab regimes did not take defending Palestine seriously.”

There were exceptions. “In 1948, Iraqi forces fought the hardest and were in a strategic position on that line that became the 1948 dividing line. But they were forced to withdraw. As a result, the Iraqi regime lost credibility. ... Some of these Iraqi military leaders forced by their government to retreat from defending Palestine in 1948 took part in the 1958 revolution in Iraq,” which deposed a pro-British monarch.

Another exception occurred in the Egyptian army. “In 1948, Gamal Abdel Nasser, then an officer in the Egyptian army, was in Fallujah [Iraq]. He and other leaders of the Egyptian army refused to give up, and were under siege for several months.” The refusal of the Egyptian regime of King Farouk to back Nassar “created a bitterness between the Egyptian masses and the leadership. It is why, in 1954, the people supported the coup” of the young officers’ movement, headed by Nasser, which toppled King Farouk.

“From 1948 to 1966 Jews living in the Arab countries, Arab Jews, were allowed to go to Palestine, especially from Morocco and Iraq. In Iraq, from 1948 to 1958, the prime minister’s son was the owner of the Iraqi airline and airlifted [Iraqi Jews] to Palestine. The Arab regimes gave the Israeli regime cheap labor to be exploited by Ashkenazi,” that is, Jewish people from Europe who formed Israel’s ruling class.

Israel started the 1967 war, attacking Jordan, Egypt, Syria and seizing and occupying the West Bank, Gaza and Sinai. “The main goal in 1967 was to destroy the Nassarist regime in Egypt.” This was because in “1963, when a progressive current took power in Yemen and Saudi Arabia interfered, the Egyptian army went to Yemen to support [the new government].” The West was concerned that oil rich Saudi Arabia could be hit from Yemen.

“In 1967, the defeated Arab comprador regimes left the battle. From 1967 to 1973, most Arab regimes stopped contributing to the Palestine struggle.”

From 1965 to 1970 Palestinians initiated their own struggles, independently of the Arab comprador regimes. Dr. Samara said, “The Arab regimes tried to contain this struggle, mainly by giving money to the rightwing headed by [Yassir] Arafat, which became very rich. This containment continues today. The role of the Arab regimes is to contain, interfere with and destroy the Palestinian movement. This is one of the main reasons why a united Palestinian front never developed within the Palestine Liberation Organization.”

Egypt sides with Israel against Palestinian state

“The Arab regimes continued this policy,” he added. Anwar Sadat, who became the Egyptian head of state after Nasser’s death, turned his country again towards imperialism. In 1978, Sadat entered negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin at Camp David and declared he would visit Israel. Sadat went along with Begin, who said, “What we will give the Palestinians is only autonomy and not a state.”

Dr. Samara pointed out that in 1970, in the Black September assault, King Hussein of Jordan attacked the Palestinian presence in Jordan, killing thousands and forcing the Palestinian Resistance into Lebanon.

And when Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006, he said, “Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan encouraged Israel to destroy Hezbollah.”

Now, “Egypt is enforcing the siege on Gaza — where there is no food, no access to health care or other key supplies.”

The current Arab comprador regimes are “against resistance. They are in the camp of the enemy and against peace for the Palestinian people. ... A change is needed in the Arab homeland” away from “the leaders who opened it up for all foreign powers.”

Nationalism of the comprador class vs. the nationalism of the workers

“Under direct and indirect colonialism there is an unequal exchange. Nationalism is an important tool in grouping people for developing cooperation and unity, especially in the Third World.”

But there is also a class divide, Dr. Samara said. “The nationalism of the comprador is dependant, and, selfish — only for the sake of the ruling class. It is tied to imperialism.

“The nationalism of the bourgeoisie is against socialism. ... The nationalism of the working class is nationalism open to socialism because this class has an interest in socialism.”

Dr. Samara emphasized the importance of Marxist theory. He continued, “Whether there is an organization or party of the popular classes is decisive. If the party is there, the comprador will not be able to divert the struggle. The fate of the revolution depends on if there is a communist party or not.”

---