What began as "Arab Spring" and it is better now to be defined as the "Arab Storm" or the "Arab Rage" began as expression of desperation of the economic plight of the younger Arab generation that can see no economic horizon for the young Arabs across the region on the very individual sense. So, it was no coincidence that when a desperate peddler in Tunis put himself on fire – the flames reached every corner in the Middle East. It was not the old slogans about "Pan Arab" empire, or "Pan Islam" caliphate that caused the Arab masses to conquer the squares- but a paddler that immolate himself.
This does not mean that the Arab Rage is all about economy- there are many versified aspects in addition to the economy, but what we can assert is that without giving an answer to the economic plight the region will continue to storm.
The immediate result of the upheaval was the advent of Moslem Brothers to power especially in Egypt, but it was misperception to identify in this development the true result of the Arab Storm because they were part and parcel of the old regime that were not tuned with the messages of the younger generation. They did not answer the economic demands but instead raised the messages of the old era- "Islam", "rescuing al-Aqsa" etc. So, their deposition by president Sisi was so easy to perform and their being crushed by the new Sisi regime was also so easy to be carried out.
The regime of Sisi understood better the call of the younger generation to have better life economically on the personal level and he tries to redeem the economy because his success or failure depends on the economy.
The success of the Moslem Brothers in the first stages was misleading. They did not convey the real messages of the new era- their messages were the same of the old era but from the Islamic side —they said: you seculars failed to establish the pan-Arab empire- -please move aside and give us the chance to establish our caliphate.
And this takes us to Syria that I perceive as the key to decide whether the Arab rage will turn to be positive for the region – and the world- or a catastrophe.
In Syria we can see the real ideological dispute—both the Assad's Baath and his enemies in the Caliphate movements rejected the Sykes-Picot borders of the current states. As for the Caliphate – it is obvious- but we forgot that also Assad's regime defined Syria not as a "state" but as "district" – "Iqlim" – in the desired pan-Arab secular united empire. So, Assad is not fighting now for "Syria" that he himself does not recognize but for something else- and it is for the survival of the Alawites that are under the danger of being slaughtered. So, the key is in splitting Syria to its sectorial components – the Kurds, the Alawites, the Druze etc. this can settle the situation and every autonomic entity will give a better fight against the Caliphate as we can already see with the fight the Kurds are giving to the Caliphate in both Iraq and Syria.
There are many problems to address this course of action and on top of them the mistaken policy of the USA and Europe that still sting to the principle of "strong unified countries". They cannot learn from the example of Pakistan that is assigned with the mission to cope with al-Qaeda but turned to be part of it. The same will be once the current policy to establish "a strong government" of old Baath and Moslem Brothers in Damascus will succeed. Uniting pan Arabism and Pan Islam is a grave mistake that will amplify the risks to Europe from the mistakes Europe committed in Libya.
It must be emphasized that the solution for Syria does not apply to Egypt that is not part to the collapsing Sykes-Picot system but has its long coherent political system for decades.
On the other hand- helping to make the real message of the Arab Spring come true of emancipating the various sects and communities in Syria will create a real new region that lost its appetite to spread violence all across the globe – and in Europe in particular.
פנחס ענברי - מזרח תיכון מסובך במילים פשוטות 