On the Israeli embassy incident
Issandr El AmraniI don't have much time but can't resist a quick comment on the attack on the Israeli embassy last night, which is already the subject of much Twitter debate.
First, what happened: yesterday there were multiple protests in Cairo, starting with one of several tens of thousands who called for an end to military tribunals, greater judicial independence, a better electoral law and other measures. The protest also was against Israel, for the recent killing of six Egyptian border guards. Some of these protestors went to the Israeli embassy, and this ended with a confrontation with police and military and, for the first time in the history of protests against the Israeli embassy, a break-in in what was probably the non-secure portion of its offices.
A few points:
- The construction of a wall outside the embassy was almost a provocation to people to come and bring it down. The symbolism of a wall was not lost on any one and merely angered people.
- The Turkish decision to downscale relations with Israel also caused a surge in national sentiment.
- The SCAF's handling of the border shootings leaves much to be desired, notably because of inconsistent statements.
- Israel's failure to make a clear, unambiguous apology for the shootings was really stupid but typically arrogant — another sign that Israel is slow to adapt to the new regional mood. But Egyptian anger is understandable: imagine if Mexico killed US border guards.
- The attack on the embassy took place in a general atmosphere of distrust of the SCAF in its handling of both domestic and foreign affairs, mounting anxiety about Egypt's transition, and incompetent and unclear leadership. I sincerely doubt it would have taken place if Nabil al-Arabi was still foreign minister.
- There are important details about the attack: it took place a few days after clashes between football fans and the police, leading to many of these Ultras both angry at the authorities and afraid that they might be arrested. The Ultras' role in penetrating the embassy was probably crucial, because they are determined and fearless (and it's important to note that in previous protests there was more restraint; it probably would have ended up with just the wall being torn down, which would have been quite satisfying in itself.)
- The SCAF's failure to prevent the intrusion into the embassy proper is flabbergasting.
I don't think I need to restate my dislike of Israel and my belief that it is largely responsible for the hostility against it in Egypt and the region, nor the looming end of the Camp David framework to Egyptian-Israeli relations. That should be clear to anyone who has read this blog. But it remains the case that the attack of an embassy is a grave violations of diplomatic norms, an worrying for other embassies in Cairo (remember the Danish cartoons crisis anyone?)
The act of entering the embassy was not just illegal (in terms of domestic and international law), it was mindless and showed a poor sense of strategy and priority. It will hurt the credibility of the protest movement at home and abroad, reinforce fears of a country getting out of control domestically, and distract from the more important issue of Egypt's still uncertain democratic transition. And it will not achieve, beyond the fleeing of most Israeli officials in Egypt for now, much to change the nature of the Egyptian-Israeli relationship. Even with only one senior embassy official remaining, the strategic relations are now taking place chiefly military to military through liaison offices that operate far away from where the embassy is located. This action does nothing to change Egyptian policy, and certainly nothing to help Palestinians, like fully ending the blockade of Gaza would.
But what's worse about the incident is that it shows how the revolution's positive energy — the desire for better governance, greater democracy and a more dignified foreign policy — is being dissipated.
Reader Comments (11)
While surely not popular with all those whose emotions get the better of them the blog says it all. Absolutely to the point. Nothing to add or reject. Thanks for this clear statement.
Issandr,
It is shocking that SCAF didn't intervene earlier, but no matter which way they go, they couldn't win on this one. I was there through the afternoon and night, and the only way to disperse those crowds would have been with force. Had SCAF done that earlier in the day, it would have only provoked the protesters further, and probably attracted more shabab. It would have been yet another huge black point against SCAF that would have led to another anti-SCAF demo and critique by MANY (including western observers) that SCAF is using the same harsh security tactics as Mubarak's regime. The protesters have always claimed to be peaceful, and yesterday SCAF said it would support peaceful demonstrations. It was when they realised that embassy papers were flying out of the windows (at which point protesters were also beginning to grab guns and shields from the riot police on alert) that the tear-gas attacks started. Yes we all have problems with SCAF and how it is managing things, but lets be honest: It can't win in the current fragmented landscape we are in. Whichever way it goes there is an angry faction.
The other thing to point out, is that while anti-Israel sentiment is wide-spread, many of those outside the embassy yesterday were young, restless, unemployed young men (I interviewed scores of them). This was thrilling for them, and while I'm sure they have inherited resentment towards Israel, they could have been stirred up to protest over anything else. Many of them I spoke to had simply "heard there was stuff going on at the Israeli Embassy" and so rushed to join. It's action, and they love it.
You don't bring this up but let me since I see this accusation flying around on Twitter: Last night had nothing to do with the Islamists - or very little. Few of those there were Islamists. Most of them were the youth I mention, the usual gathering of English-speaking Twitterati, and the socialist activists, who are actually the ones who had first called for a march from Tahrir to the embassy.
Big question is, if we are so determined to get rid of SCAF, why aren't we actually organizing ourselves and working to take over this country through elections. We keep pointing the finger at SCAF, but in many ways, where we are is partly our own fault -- If we had started to organize and mobilize after the referendum vote (instead of some really stupid demonstrations and marches), we would be in a very different place today. SCAF can't be taking all the blame - we've played a role too.
Great comment, Yasmine - thanks. It's true SCAF was in a tough position, but one wonders about the security precautions taken BEHIND the wall. I wasn't there, so can't tell.
And your note on Islamists is important too: they boycotted yesterday's protests, so this can't be blamed on them.
As an outside observer, it's sad to me that in 9 months that no "leftist" leadership exists to steer the ship through such crazy waves.
Not a criticism of egyptians or arabs specifically; this is the case everywhere in the world.
Just goes to show how bad the USSR and Stalinism were for the left/socialists; it needs to start again from scratch.
Thanks for your a great comment Yasmine (can't wait to read what you write about this). However, do you really think the army couldn't have taken any steps to avoid this? Are we to believe that if an angry, determined crowd targets a different embassy tomorrow, they will also be allowed to breach it? I think the army could have prevented people from approaching the area (as they did when protesters tried to reach the Ministry of Defense). Or they could have stood on their tanks and tried to talk the crowd down (once the wall was knocked down). They very clearly from the beginning had decided to stand aside. I wasn't there, I was watching on TV, but for hours and hours the crowd was allowed to operate with complete freedom. I'm not sure what the logic was -- let the kids run wild, it will make them look bad, seems to be one theory -- but I think there was a logic.
Historical note: the British embassy in Dublin was burned down after Bloody Sunday. It's not always possible to stop these sort of thing, if the crowd wants it enough.
Issandr.
I was about to write up the same points and send them over to you, you've put it better than I ever could.
As for the Army not intervening earlier, Aljazzera Arabic had a reporter down there earlier in the day, he noted how the army stood by and on occasion handed back hammers to the demonstrators knocking down the wall, with a salute in hand. I have no problem with that, but it shows the army cadets/personnel have sensitivities and feelings not that different form the general public, and may be indicative of SCAF's strategical thinking usually made on a whim.
Sorry seems to be the hardest word for the Israeli's, so much of this could be diffused by a proper apology to Egypt for the deaths on the boarder, and so much more would have went to ease tensions with Turkey too.
Sadly western heads of state have jumped to condemn what is by all accounts an illegal act, but so was the forging of British, German, French, Canadian, Australian, Austrian, South African and Irish passports to assassinate and abduct individuals in sovereign states and international seas.
Their reaction was at most muted, despite the consequences of such illegal and criminal acts for those nationals.
" The Ultras' role in penetrating the embassy was probably crucial, because they are determined and fearless"
Are you sure about that ?
Sarah El Deeb (@seldeeb) said on Twitter :
"@mkearley2008 just saw statement by ultras saying they officially pulled out at 6pm. Was there at 8 and didn't see any"
So in the end, Israel's fears of this revolution have been justified.
These were not the Ultras there are posting of the attack and the penetration on different sites on facebook none of them identify the Ultras, besides the Ultras withdrew at 6:00 and the attack happened later. Please reevaluate your information, the Ultras are truly fearless but this time they saw a trap and they withdrew, tahrir had a very successful demonstration
So, they just went to any target? year, it was just ANY embassy, sure. Russian or Chinese would be the same. (NO)
By the way, they tried to do the same to SA embassy, but were not successful.
Tell what you want about it, but SCAF was unable to throw out Zionist "ambassador" - they were forbidden by USA. And Egyptian people was able to do it!
of course, all half-hearted "friends" of Egyptian revolution have cold feet now. So what? Real revolution ALWAYS left such type behind.
regarding real problems of the revolution - it could NOT proceed without getting rid of SCAF. I am sure this "incident" (LOL) is a step in right direction. Down with SCAF - a lackey of USA and Zionists! Long live revolution!