A generation of Arabs and Lebanese, especially those from the second half of the 20th century, became used to burning the American flag, and the Israeli flag, during demonstrations and popular gatherings, and to trampling on them with their feet. It was a generation of pan-Arabists and leftists of various ideological persuasions, and of Islamists, who grew in number with the new millennium. There are various reasons for this symbolic act against the west, but the chief reason for burning the American flag has been the blind bias of the US administration toward Israel, not to speak of its total bias toward Israeli extremism during the phase of negotiating over a peaceful solution to the conflict. On 4 February, the United Nations Security Council convened, and Russia and China used their veto against an Arab-western resolution on Syria. During this session, an Arab diplomat who used to join his generation in burning the American flag, as a leftist pan-Arabist, headed for the head of the American delegation, Ambassador Susan Rice, and told her, "We're used to burning the flag of your country because of its policy toward our region. There is a new development; the Russian flag is being burned in some of our cities and villages, particularly in Syria." Opponents of the Syrian regime who were demonstrating began to burn the Russian and Chinese flag after they heard the news of these countries' veto on the resolution. This was not the first time this has happened. The Arab diplomat felt a new element had begun to enter the equation in terms of the mood of young people, despite the stance of two generations that used to deal with Moscow as a supporter of Arab rights in the face of American denial of them. It goes without saying that the burning of the American flag in Arab streets has not prevented Washington for decades from retaining its influence in the region, or protecting its interests. Moreover, the new development has also failed to prevent people from considering the relationship with Washington an accusation, which is what prompted American elites a decade ago to ask "Why do they hate us?" Up to now, and even though Washington has played a role on the international stage in keeping pace with the Arab uprisings for democracy, pluralism, anti-corruption and regaining national dignity, the Americans have not succeeded in dealing seriously with the essential answer to this question. The US is miscalculating, just as it earlier miscalculated in reassuring itself that Arab peoples would be grateful for its support for the revolutions and change in a number of countries, that it would be able to adapt to neo-Islamists taking power in these countries, and that it can be satisfied with the fact that the countries of the Arab spring are too busy for the Palestinian issue, the source of popular resentment against Washington. The US sacrifices made for this change can only be interpreted as the desire of some social groups, which rose up, to recover national dignity and regain some balance for the Arab role on the international scene. This explains the assault on the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The coming days will prove that these social groups and political groupings that have been produced, and will be produced, by years of oppression, authoritarianism and corruption, as they recover their role in decision-making and deciding their future, will enhance the countries' ability to achieve a high level of national independence, compared to the dependence of earlier regimes. These later relied on the provision of huge, strategic services to the west and the US, to secure their continuity. Moscow is making a mistake in its role (along with Beijing, despite the difference in their two positions vis-à-vis the veto used in the Security Council) if it suffices by believing, like the US, that it can retain its interests in the region despite the popular resentment that arose toward Russia's stance on the Syrian uprising. It might be able to do so, as a result of bargains that take place later on, and after a role that Moscow might play in a solution in Syria. The question remains: is this sufficient to repair Russia's image in the region, after the symbolic act of the burning of its flag? Moreover, what about the recent Saudi stance, namely considering dialogue with Russia over Syria after the veto to be non-productive? This raises doubts about Moscow's ability to protect its interests in the region, and the same goes for Beijing (involving a larger economic role). If the reasons for the Arab uprisings are the west's condescension toward Arab interests, as a result of the weakness of the fallen regimes vis-à-vis the interests of the region and their position in the international political equation, then Moscow's ignoring of the Saudi and Gulf stance will become a feeling that it does not take the regional weight of these countries seriously. This will in turn breed popular resentment. In this event, Russia's excuses, that it is anxious about the rise of Islamists, and that standing against the west bolsters its nationalist credentials and popularity with presidential elections scheduled in a few days, come to resemble Washington's excuses, that it is supporting Israel because of Palestinian terror, and that they must respect the influence of the Jewish lobby in presidential elections. These excuses do not prevent the burning of the American flag.
