In any case, a weakened Egypt preoccupied with internal affairs portends
poorly for the pragmatic camp supporting the political process and
encourages the radical camp, intent on Israel’s destruction.

INSS Insight No. 240, January 31, 2011

The Uprising in Egypt: An Initial Assessment
http://www.inss.org.il/upload/%28FILE%291296467508.pdf

Shmuel Even

President Mubarak is currently facing the biggest challenge to his regime
since taking office close to thirty years ago. On January
28, after several days of violent demonstrations throughout Egypt,
the 82-year old Mubarak called on the army to quell the unrest, announcing
he “would not allow anything to threaten the peace, law, and future of the
country.” On January 29, Mubarak appointed Omar Suleiman, head of Egyptian
intelligence, to the post of vice president, and charged Ahmed Shafiq, a
former Egyptian air force commander and the new prime minister, with the
task of forming a new government to undertake reforms and calm the masses.
At the time of this writing, the crisis is in full force and definitive
outcomes cannot be predicted.

The Crisis

Egypt has a population of 81 million; the annual growth rate of the
population is estimated at 2 percent, and the GDP is $6,200 (in terms of
buying power). The economic situation of the weaker classes, government
corruption, and the encouragement the population drew from the uprising in
Tunisia underlay the spontaneous eruption of the protests. While those close
to the Egyptian regime enjoy a lavish lifestyle, the weaker classes stagger
under the burden of the most basic subsistence and the middle class is
disappearing. Unemployment stands at close to 10 percent and the price of
basic foods is skyrocketing – in part because of the steep rise in food
prices worldwide, which despite the subsidies for basics goods has
affected prices on the local market. This phenomenon is also a
fundamental reason for the waves of protest in Tunisia, Yemen, and Algeria.

The standard of living of the lower class in Egypt is particularly low, at
the level of basic existence, because the average income is much lower than
the international average and because the country lacks advanced mechanisms
of social welfare available in developed nations. As a result of
urbanization, more than two-thirds of the Egyptian population work in
services, trade, and industry, and unlike in the past, have no access to
sources of food in the rural areas.

The protests are popular in nature and do not seem to be directed by the
Islamic opposition (although the protests were joined by Islamic elements).
The lack of a central organization responsible for the events makes it
difficult for the regime to identify targets to suppress. Opposition
leaders, such as Mohamed ElBaradei who sees himself as a candidate in this
year's presidential elections, have joined the protests, but they are not
directing the protesters. Thus far the army has deployed at key locations in
the cities but has not reined in the masses. At this point it seems that
military forces are concerned with protecting government edifices rather
than taking significant action to restore public order.

Mubarak’s difficulties are compounded by American pressure. On January 26
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: “We support the universal
rights of the Egyptian people including the rights to freedom of
expression, association, and assembly. And we urge the Egyptian authorities
not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on
social media sites.” On January 28 President Obama made statements to the
same effect. The administration’s reserved stance towards the Egyptian
regime's self-defense efforts are reminiscent of the Carter administration's
attitude to the fall of the shah in Iran on the eve of the Islamic
Revolution in 1979; it is liable to affect the standing of the United States
among similar regimes in the region.

As in Tunisia, there has been widespread use of social media resources such
as Twitter and Facebook. Activists use the net not only for propaganda
purposes and reports on regime violence but also to recruit participants,
organize protests, and direct events. Therefore, the regime blocked access
to the internet and disrupted some mobile communications. An additional
challenge for the regime is the extensive presence of foreign media
broadcasting directly from the scene, which makes it hard for the regime to
act aggressively toward the protesters.

Historical Precedents

Mubarak is well aware of the risks of a shaky economy to internal stability.
In the so- called “Bread Riots” in January 1977, sparked by the steep
increase in prices of basic foods following the government’s attempt to cut
back on subsidies, 50 people were killed and some 600 were injured.
Then-Vice President Mubarak acted to quell the unrest but after three days,
the regime abandoned this attempt. In February 1986, riots were started by
soldiers from the central security units in Cairo and quickly spread to
other areas in Egypt. The Egyptian press reported that the riots rose from
the economic situation and the gap between a rich minority and a poor
majority, and that the riots were started by particularly embittered
soldiers who were joined by poor civilians. The rioters, who aimed their
fury at economic targets – stores, banks, and so on – were ultimately
stopped by the army.

Despite the similarity, it seems that the current crisis in Egypt is already
larger than those events, which the regime managed to suppress.

What Lies Ahead

The question of how deep the crisis will go and what the outcomes will be
depends on the ability of the protesters or the opposition to translate the
protest into a political force opposing the president’s power and the
apparatus at his disposal. The position of the generals is likely to be very
influential, as was evident in the deposal of Tunisian President Ben Ali. It
is not clear if there are any cracks in the military’s support for the
regime, but there seems to be no willingness on the military’s part to
confront the demonstrators. How much the military will be willing to act to
ensure the continuation of Mubarak’s regime is a critical question.

The outcome of the riots may not necessarily be connected to what or who
ignited them, rather to whatever power structure is created and those who
succeed in leveraging it for their own benefit. In such a power structure,
the Islamic opposition is liable to expand its influence. At the same time,
even if the regime succeeds in suppressing the uprising, it seems that Egypt
will not be able to go back to what it was and that the Mubarak regime will
end this year, one way or another.

Even if Mubarak remains in power, it seems that he will have to abandon his
attempt to crown his son Gamal as president in the 2011 presidential
elections. This will spell the end of a move seen by many Egyptians as an
attempt to restore the monarchy through the back door, as Hafez Asad did in
Syria by appointing his son Bashar as his successor. And should the crisis
expand, the regime leaders are likely to urge Mubarak to retire early and
appoint a temporary president to serve until the elections, thereby
preserving the regime, albeit in a different composition.

Alternatively, Egypt is liable to find itself in a period of instability,
highly undesirable by all sides. Under certain circumstances, undermining
the current power bases may generate an extremist Islamic regime, in part
because of the organizational capabilities of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood.

The shockwaves of the events in Egypt and Tunisia may well spill over to
other Middle Eastern countries, as many of them suffer from similar
syndromes. The concern that the riots in Egypt will spread to other Arab
states caused the price of oil to spike by 4.5 percent already on January
28.

The Israeli Context

For now, the crisis has no Israeli connection and Israel has not been
mentioned in the recent clashes. Nonetheless, Israel has excellent reason to
follow developments closely, in light of its interest in maintaining
the peace agreement, its growing dependence on Egyptian gas, and the
ramifications for regional stability (e.g., a radical change in Egypt is
liable to generate a dramatic change in the Middle East balance of power).

In any case, a weakened Egypt preoccupied with internal affairs portends
poorly for the pragmatic camp supporting the political process and
encourages the radical camp, intent on Israel’s destruction. Even if the
regime succeeds in suppressing the uprising, Egypt is in for a year of
difficult political challenges that threaten its stability. In the current
crisis, Israel has neither the capability nor a reason to intervene, and
Israeli senior figures would do well to demonstrate restraint. Still, the
possibility that Egypt might pursue a new direction is no longer
theoretical and Israel must consider the implications of the various
possible scenarios.