The Storming of the Israeli occupation embassy

Arwa kindly translated my recent article in Al-Akhbar: 

"The Storming of the Embassy in the Building

As’ad Abu Khalil

To Habib Shartuni, wherever you are,
On your anniversary.

No qualms about it. We hate Israel (while disliking Amr Moussa andHusni Mubarak). We hate it immensely. No shame in admitting to that. Politicalspite is not only justified; it fuels fundamental change. Would the apartheidregime in South Africa have collapsed had Blacks not abhorred it? Zionistpropaganda not only wants to crush armed resistance, but it depicts our hatredof it as a kind of racism per se, because racism is reserved for the white man(and the Israeli – the latter strives to model himself after the white man, ignoringIsrael’s non-European population). The storming of the embassy was a televisionand internet moment.

Every calamity that befalls the enemy is an opportunity for us tocelebrate as we await the greatest celebration, when the usurping entity falls.Who didn’t rejoice at the sight of the lowering of the flag, and thecompetition among the Egyptian uprising’s youth to climb the building? Whodidn’t notice that the enemy’s building insisted on opening in a residentialbuilding (without the residents’ knowledge or input, of course, but this wasdecided by the Sadat-Mubarak regime) in order to use the residents as humanshields? The enemy’s embassy used the building’s residents as human shields, toguarantee it would never experience an explosion or a fire. The Egyptiangovernment should’ve required the Israeli embassy to move elsewhere, where itwould be accessible to protesters. The enemy’s embassy wants to enjoy thegovernment’s protection and that of civilians, who are forced to bear theburden of sharing space with the enemy’s outpost in Egypt. Jubilation andcongratulations about the storming of the embassy spread on Facebook andTwitter. It might be a watershed moment in the Egyptian uprising’s history. Wemay say “after the storming of the embassy, not before.” This has destroyed theZionists’ dreams of peaceful coexistence with the Egyptian uprising’s outcome.

Husni Mubarak’s era represented a depraved time on all frontsincluding cultural production. There is a brand of art, known in Egypt as“degraded” art, that flourishes only in a degraded era like that of Sadat and Mubarak. Compare that to Abdul Naser’s era, who was soley accused tyrannyby the House of Saud. That doesn’t mean the Mubarak-Sadat era was absolutelydevoid of good art. But the art that gained international recognition (in thearts and literature) was decadent. Adel Imam was an opportunist, one of thefinal products of the Jamal Mubarak era that never began; Imam was a Nasseriteduring Nasserism, a Sadatite during Sadat’s government and a supporter of Mubarakduring Mubarak’s era. In his movie “Al-Safara fi Al-‘imara” (The Embassy in theBuilding) embodied Mubarak’s obsolete values (which still haven’t ended due toSCAF rule). The movie sought to trivialize most Arabs’ political principles(with the exception of the House of Saud’s lackeys who write in thepublications of … the House of Saud). The movie tries to depict the generationof hostility towards Israel (as if that generation ended in the sixties) onethat deserves ridicule. In the movie, the “protagonist’s” sexual instinctsbecome more important than rejection of Israel. The position towards Israel’saggression becomes a mere debatable viewpoint.

This week’s scenes of the Israeli occupation embassy’ storminginflamed the new online Arab generation. I followed it online and was relievedthat the new Arab generation holds no less animosity towards Israel than itspredecessors whenever the opportunity to express itself arose, and whenever thenightmare receded (this is Altantawi, the US and Israel’s dilemma in Egypt. Thefear factor has disappeared, and nobody can succeed Omar Suleiman’s filthyacts, internally and externally despite the fact that the revolution has notyet ripened). Israel has secretly known the Arab world’s concealed opinions. Itknew that its interests coincide only with tyrannical regimes like Sadat andMubarak’s. The pictures from embassy were exhilarating. An Egyptian protesterwas sending me pictures from the site via her own phone (she holds a PhD fromOxford, and I say this only because western media has tried to depict theprotesters as Mubarak’s hooligans. Politically and sexually sleazy websiteElaph spread the idea that the protesters were paid by Jamal Mubarak’scronies). Egyptian indignation towards the enemy’s embassy has severalmeanings: it conveys not only traditional Arab anger towards the usurpingentity but it also expresses a new Arab awareness. The Arab people have becomeaware that Israel is Arab tyrants’ natural ally in our area while itsimultaneously boasts of its own democracy (it is democratic for Jews only, andthere is racism amongst Jews themselves, in the same fashion as the apartheidregime in South Africa before it crumbled). The truth about Israel’s supportfor repressive regimes from Morocco to Saudi Arabia was concealed from mostArabs (including military, intelligence and sometimes economic support. Let’snot forget Mauritania’s drive to normalize with Israel). All this was exposedover the last few months when the deceptive Israeli government concealed itstrue sentiments towards Husni Mubarak. Israel will soon regret, if it hasn’talready regretted, making its affinity with Mubarak publicly before and afterhis downfall. That is, it has implicitly included anti-Israeli feelings in thenew definition of Egyptian citizenship. The Egyptian people have understood thetrick, and they have realized that Israel and Saudi Arabia clung desperately toMubarak’s regime to the very last minute and beyond. This explains the Egyptianmasses’ approach of both the Israeli embassy and the Saudi embassy (though theSaudi embassy enjoys strong protection from SCAF, which receives Saudi money).All Arab media, and most western media, ignored the Egyptian masses’ march tothe Saudi embassy because the simultaneous animosity to Israel and the House ofSaud is embarrassing.

The embassy does not only represent Zionist penetration into theArab world and an attempt to quell categorical rejection of Israel as per theno’s of Khartoum. The embassy’s large crew does (not) conceal its espionage andterrorist intentions as well as psychological warfare forcing the Arab peopleto accept the idea of peace with Israel; a concept supported by Husni Mubarak’sfamily and a a few Egyptian writers in Saudi newspapers. The Israeli embassy inCairo is a point of penetration Arab societies as well as a nerve center forespionage operations in Egypt and other Arab countries. The Camp David regimecrumbled before the Egyptian uprising completely expelled the Israeli presencefrom Egypt. Liberals still try to impose limitations on the discoursesurrounding Camp David: it demands nothing more than amendment of Camp David’sstipulations in order to mobilize Egyptian troops in the Sinai, as WalidJunblat opined. That is, Egyptian liberals’ goal is to increase Israel’ssecurity provided by the Egyptian army.

The details of the attack on the Israeli embassy reveal much aboutthe essence of the ruling regime in Egypt and about Israel’s strategic status. Itappears that six armed security personnel were trapped inside the embassy, orinside a bathroom, or on the rooftops, fearing the people’s wrath. Israelipress that Netanyahu and Barak called “field marshal” – what a funny title forofficers who led armies to defeat; the title is better suited for south Lebanon’syouth in 2006, who deserve the title – Tantawi more than once but he refused totalk to them. When Netanyahu and his staff gave up on trying to reach Tantawithe enemy’s leaders contacted Obama and the US Secretary of Defense (and thehead of Egyptian intelligence, who promptly responded to the enemy). The USSecretary of Defense tried for two hours to reach Tantawi, to no avail, hefinally managed to deliver a direct threat to the Egyptian regime. This conveysthe enemy’s strategic crisis: this is the Zionist state that has enjoyed atremendous amount of aid from the US, Germany and other countries as well asmonstrous western arms without the humiliating conditions imposed on Gulfregimes, which are meant to boost western economies. Despite that, the Zioniststate found itself in a weak, helpless position. When the people revolt theenemy’s arsenal disappears even nuclear weapons. This was a lesson the Shah,the apartheid regime in South Africa and Husni Mubarak’s regime learned.Israel, which used to send its terrorist planes around the world to rescue asingle Israel individual, calls out for help from the American administrationso it commands Field Marshal Tantawi to stop the spontaneous attack on theembassy. Israel could do nothing but wait and arrange for the escape of theterrorists within (they may have dressed as farmers, as some newspapersreported). The Israeli prime minister may have allowed the embassy’s securityto fire on the Egyptian masses, and they did, but SCAF certainly censored thisnews (there may be an American propaganda movie soon “starring” the enemy’sterrorists and depicting the Egyptian protesters’ “savagery.”)

We can use this event to extrapolate the short term future. Theenemy’s media was terrified. Israel’s international isolation has increasedalong with Arab people’s anger. Fighter jets that had defeated Arab regimes’armies in the past have become useless. There is confusion in the enemy’s rankstowards the embassy crisis. The enemy’s media worked to cover up the embarrassmentand the people’s rage. Israel was in no position to face that kind of reaction,a few months after the overthrow of its dear Mubarak (even American liberalwriter Richard Cohen, who writes for the Washington Post, wrote a letterreminiscing about Husni Mubarak after the embassy attack). Israel’s leadersdiscovered that the era of Camp David supports Zionism but it’s suffers severeweakness (it is incorrect to assume Camp David is a bilateral agreement,especially since it involves several military and secret intelligenceprovisions that the US inserted – just ask Nabil Al-Arabi). This weakness liesin the States’ ability to secure a pro-American, tyrannical regime. ConsecutiveAmerican administrations since 1979 performed their duties and flooded theSadat-Mubarak regime with military and intelligence support. But the people’s angeris greater, as we saw. To advance its own hegemony in the area and protectIsrael’s interests, the US made Mubarak’s family a Pharoah dynasty. JamalMubarak was prepared for his position via coordination between his father’sgovernment and the Bush administration. American media used to race to meetJamal Mubarak as if he were the wise man of the Nile. Obama clung on to Mubarakuntil the last minute. And when it became clear that Mubarak could no longer continuein power Obama tried to appease Israel with Omar Soleiman, but this alsofailed. Omar Soleiman’s role was the Obama’s administration last choice toextend Mubarak’s era.

Arab treatment of the scenes of the embassy attack sufficed tobring the House of Saud’s lackeys out of the woodworks to come to Israel’srescue. Ali Salim, who calls for normalizing with Israel (who sees nocontradiction in normalizing and expressing hostility to Jews as Jews in Arabicmedia. But aren’t all Israel’s friends in the Arab world anti-Jewish?) playedthe same old Saudi media broken record: the tune of warning against chaos andwars after the fall of Mubarak. Since Mubarak’s overthrow Prince Salman’snewspaper, Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, has been rife with articles and pictures warningagain chaos if Mubarak were to fall and they published sleazy articles aboutIranian and Hamas conspiracies to overthrow him. The editor of this newspaper,who is one of the loudest Likudnik voices among the ranks of the House ofSaud’s writers, equated the burning of the embassy with the burning of Egypt.Even Walid Junblat (who returned from Libya praising the new regime just likehe used to praise Qadhafi – but this time he took with him an oil expert) expressedhis opinion about Camp David as harming the “civility” of the Egyptian revolt. Speakingabout civility and killing with axes, is anyone more informed about that thanWalid Junblat? The House of Saud’s press chose, for reasons ordinary humanintelligence cannot fathom, to play the role of a guardian to democraticuprisings in the Arab world. The House of Saud’s lackeys may be confused:perhaps beheading in Riyadh’s public squares are the ideal democratic model.

The advancement, not regression, of the Egyptian uprising to thelevel of revolution will result in an immediate distinction betweenfundamental, revolutionary change and liberal change. Of course, Islamists havetheir own calculations according to the Qatari or Saudi governments, or boththese days. Islamists (Ikhwan and Salafists) stayed away from the storming ofthe embassy. They actually condemned it. Jihad is resisting Abdulnaser becausethe Ikhwan were in a regional-global alliance that includes the Israeli enemy. Butthe Cold War is in the past now, albeit it is clearer why Abdulnaser opposedthe Ikhwan. The liberal wing in Egypt rushed to strongly denounce the stormingof the embassy. Since when were revolutions liberal? Is there a revolution inhistory that was created by liberals? Liberals do not sully their hands withrevolutions: they just try to reap their rewards during their appealing phases,but they flee once it turns into a revolution.

The website “We are all Khaled Said,” on Google’s behalf, whichsecretly assured the Israeli government it would block search results ofIsrael’s maps in a way that only Mossad directors and Google know about – thewebsite quickly commented on the embassy storming and described it as“amateur.” Wael Ghonem, the Egyptian uprising’s accepted face for the white manbecause he works in an accepted company and because he says nothing againstMubarak’s American sponsor. He also has no position against Israel) commentedon Twitter denouncing the storming of the embassy. Yediot Ahronot promptly quotedWael Ghonem as the sole representative of the uprising of millions ofEgyptians. While it is true that Ghonem returned to demand the Egyptiangovernment to take a “strong” stance after the killing of the sixth Egyptiansoldier on the hands of the enemy, but a strong stance is defined by liberalsas kissing the enemy’s cheeks no more than three times during formal meetings.Arab liberalism  shares some features (weshouldn’t confuse Egypt’s independent liberals with those liberals who writefor the princes of Saud). All forms of Arab liberalism suffer the white mancomplex: they try to appease him in every way possible, especially with regardto his stance towards Israel. Popular anti-Israeli sentiment embarrasses Arabliberals because they embrace the white man (who is a Zionist) and theyconstantly try to prove their civility. For this reason liberals’ comment onthe storming of the embassy was to stress the importance of the revolution’speacefulness and civility.

Revolutions were never “civil.” There was no civility in anyglobal revolts that are considered beacons for humanity, such as the Frenchrevolution. Robespierre gave no attention to the charges leveled against himaccusing him of terrorism (if Robespierre were alive today the US would’vethrown him in Guantanamo in a heartbeat). Robespierre would tell them: if Iwere a terrorist, you would be at my feet. How could violence towards aconcrete wall (built b the enemy on Egyptian soil, with permission fromTantawi’s council) be considered violence? We’ve been told for years that thedefinition of terrorism according to Zionism is any violence committed againstany Israel even if he were a heavily armed terrorist soldier, which would thenresult in a United Nations resolution. But how is the demolition of a wallconsidered terrorism? Also, why does the storming of the enemy’s embassy causemore noise than the Israeli terrorist soldiers’ killing of Egyptian soldiersand Egyptian civilians? Liberalism may latch on to revolutions but they do notcreate them. The distinction between liberals and revolutionaries is inevitableand it may have been set in motion. As Amin Rihani described this phase [in his poem "Revolution"] in “TheValleys’ Chant”: Haven’t we told them the stories of Paris / when the Bastillewas smashed, and the prisoners serenaded / when the king was beheaded / and thenecks of top French people were cut.”"

Posted on September 25, 2011 by As'ad