Friday Prayers for Egypt

God,

Egyptians want to put right the revolution. Today they have been vehement against its guardian. Major demonstrations have taken place again, with many accusing the armed forces of failure to accede to the revolutionary demands they promised to protect. Some demand a timetable for surrendering their authority.

God, give wisdom to the ruling leaders. The care of 85 million people is in their hands; the task of rebuilding a nation is at their feet. If there is unhealthy ambition, God, curb it. If there is a lack of trust in the people, help the people to prove trustworthy. If there is legitimate fear of Islamists, may they be exposed. If there is illegitimate fear, may they craft strong bonds with all political trends. May the military carry its charge well, and surrender it in due time.

God, too often revolutionary pushes are met with distractions, and today has witnessed among the worst kind. Sectarian issues have erupted in a city of Upper Egypt, and Christians homes are reportedly on fire. Details are still scant; bless those who are collecting them – that they might report judiciously. Bless those who are suffering – that they might have patience, peace, and forgiveness. Bless those who have struck them – that they might repent. Bless Egypt – that she would rally against any such barbarity, and possibly manipulation. Keep Egypt on a straight path; as it has long been crooked, make it straight.

Give such grace as well, God, to those who are rallying for their economic share. Many have succeeded recently; if this is for your praise, God, may it be given. Yet may their victory not inspire others to push beyond what is their due. For those who need due recompense, and have long worked without it, may they find gracious management, and wisdom if otherwise. Egypt is not strong to handle a deluge of labor protests; yet make Egypt strong so that each may receive his right. May generosity trump selfishness; a living wage the bottom line. Help so many Egyptians escape from poverty.

God, may Egyptians repent of their sins. May they find wisdom and courage. May they banish their fear and unleash their creativity. May they embrace each other, in submission and challenge, rebuke and encouragement, accountability and love. May Egypt be a light and beacon to all.

Amen.

Published in: on September 30, 2011 at 10:15 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Interview with the Maspero Youth Union

Demonstrations in front of the Radio and TV Building, Maspero, Cairo

Fadi Philip is a 26 year old veterinary physician, but his priority of love and labor is as an activist with the Maspero Youth Union (MYU), for which he serves as English language media spokesman. I became acquainted with Fadi and the MYU through several visits in May during their sit-in protest at the Maspero Radio and Television Building in Cairo, protesting the Imbaba attacks. On this occasion I introduced Fadi to a visiting researcher from George Washington University, and took the notes necessary to record his views here. To note: this interview was conducted in early June.

What is the philosophy of the Maspero Youth Union?

We aim to be a political face for Egyptian Christians, doing so away from the church. We are not trying to be leaders in place of the church, but rather to show people they do not need to run to the church when they meet with difficulties.

What is the role of liberation theology in your movement?

After the Egyptian revolution many Christians have adopted liberation theology, but in Egypt today, right and wrong are determined in the street. The problem is that the church will not go into the street. Christians aim to have a secular state, but how can we say this when we run to the church to solve all our problems?

Do you want to change the church?

The problem is that the Christians do not have leaders in any significant way. We must have these leaders, but we must have them outside of the church.

Is this then a rejection of the church?

No, what is necessary is that Christians get involved in politics, but when the church gets involved in politics things become very complicated. Some priests of the church are with us, but others are worried our actions could increase fundamentalism among Muslims, who might get upset when Christians do not simply sit quietly. Unfortunately, many Christians have become negative, thinking that they can move God and change things simply by praying and singing. I believe praying and singing is important, but we must do more.

What about the opinion of Pope Shenouda? Didn’t he speak against your sit-in?

Well, the pope is not the leader of the MYU. In any case, we don’t believe he really spoke against our efforts, but that he was pushed to say what he did.

What convinces you of this?

Our representatives went to the cathedral and asked him his opinion. He did not ask us to end the sit-in, but that he was afraid his sons and daughters there would be in danger. Furthermore, when Bishop Yu’annis related his message, he quoted the pope as saying ‘And God is the one who makes prosper.’ This is a very well known army phrase, used after all their public statements. It is not an expression the pope would use.

In any case, the church is trying to avoid problems, and many people believe that problems can happen when Christians are in the street. But we believe there is no freedom without cost, and we are willing to pay the cost.

By identifying yourselves as Copts do you identify yourselves as a minority, or against your Egyptian identity?

The word ‘Copt’ means ‘Egypt’ etymologically, but yes, it is true we are working for Coptic rights. We are a Christian movement in what we work for, though, not in our composition. We have Muslim members, though they are a small percentage. Yet we do receive much spiritual support and encouragement from Muslims, as well as media support from personalities like Nabil Sharaf al-Din and Fatima Naout. It must also be mentioned that several Muslims came to defend our group when we were attacked.

Currently, though, we do not have open membership, and there is no particular profile about the Muslims who have joined us. At this stage we are less interested in enrolling those who ‘love’ us in favor of those who know our issues well. Currently, we are pursuing legal registration as a human rights organization, and not as a political party.

What is the composition of your group?

We are between 200-300 people who bear some sort of responsibility within the MYU, each of which oversees between 10-15 people. We are not looking to expand too quickly, but we have opened branches in Alexandria, Ismailia, and Asyut. We will look into expanding our membership once we have completed the registration process.

What is the role of Fr. Philopater and Fr. Mattias?

These two priests have been with us from the beginning, when the MYU was created by merging several groups, including the one around the magazine they founded, al-Katiba al-Tibiyya. Though they are with us, we do not constitute that they represent the church in being with us. They have joined us as Egyptians. Yet at the same time, in being a priest they do confer legitimacy upon us in the eyes of many Egyptian Christians.

It is not true to say they work as ‘double agents’, but they are trying to work on both sides – the people and the church. They can certainly help us with inner church workings.

Fr. Philopater is a very outspoken person. During the Mubarak regime he spoke harshly against it and was suspended for one year. Yet he would not accept to be sent abroad, such as to America, in the manner which Fr. Marcus Aziz was sent to serve the church in Australia. To be clear, though, both Fr. Philopater and Fr. Mattias are still practicing priests.

al-Katiba al-Tibiyya is very popular in the Coptic Diaspora. Is the Maspero Youth Union connected to the Diaspora as well?

al-Katiba al-Tibiyya is concerned about  what is happening, speaking the truth as it is; I believe it is also popular here in Egypt. People living abroad do not know what is happening here, but they trust the magazine since those here do.

We do have connections to Copts living abroad, and we have met with Michael Munir and Michel Qilada, for example. We will not push anyone away from us, and all are welcome to cooperate with us. Yet there is a problem in that many of these call for international protection for the Copts, wishing for UN involvement and calling for sanctions. This, however, does not meet with our needs. Perhaps they can help with human rights issues.

I reject the call for international protection because I will not risk the security of Egypt for my own security. Some Muslims hear ‘international protection’ and understand it to mean what is happening in Libya. These might then interpret that Copts are looking to make trouble, attack us, and this will harm the stability of Egypt.

What can the Diaspora do to support the MYU?

The most important thing is media coverage. 60-70% of the revolution’s success was based on the media’s attention. It prevented Tahrir Square from becoming Tienamen Square. Good media overage can help overcome the general illiteracy about Christian rights in Egypt.

Young Egyptians abroad were helpful with the revolution. Are you connected to them?

The image of the revolution being made by the young was just a play. The revolution was not made through the internet but from the hatred directed toward the Mubarak regime and its inept handling of the protests.

Yes, many Egyptians abroad ‘felt proud’ to be Egyptian, but did they feel any pressure or help in any real way? Not really.

What is the final summary of what you would like to say?

We have discussed the most important matters. I would like to emphasize that we are looking to take pressure off the church. The greater our success in representing Coptic issues, the less pressure the government will put on the pope concerning us.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you, it was my pleasure.

Published in: on September 29, 2011 at 3:08 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags: , ,

A Window into Character: The Conflict at Maspero

The Coptic demonstration prior to the attack

All men have ideals; it is when they are tested that they are revealed as true or false, or somewhere in-between. Psychologists have identified the ‘fight or flight’ response to conflict: One either meets it head on or withdraws from the scene. Neither one nor the other is wisdom necessarily, but rather the gut reaction to a situation of danger. Such urges presumably can be resisted in either direction, but decisions made in these few seconds will either haunt or honor the character of a man.

On May 14 the Coptic sit-in protestors at the Egyptian TV and Radio Building at Maspero, along with their Muslim sympathizers, faced such a challenge. I have written about this previously here, and in more detail shortly thereafter here. In an effort to disperse their sit-in ‘thugs’ led by certain Salafi Muslim elements attacked their location, using guns, knives, stones, and Molotov cocktails. For this text I have had opportunity to speak with Fadi Phillip, one of the leaders of the Maspero Youth Union (MYU) which called for the protest. He was on the scene, and described his role in and perspective of the attacks.

Fadi is the English language media representative for the Maspero Youth Union; as such he is not generally to be found on the front lines. Some Copts are assigned roles with security, others in the clinic. In general, though a leader, Fadi works hardest when things are calm and journalists arrive to seek a story. When the attacks began he was idle, far from the front lines, like most other protestors. As a leader he tried to spring into action, but the situation was spiraling out of control.

Quickly he ran to the front lines to inquire what was going on. Whoever he spoke with grasped his badge and seemingly rebuked him for not knowing. The MYU is well organized internally, but a sit-in attracts all sorts. This enthusiastic Copt, from wherever he came, was eager to defend the group, but he did not fall in with or recognize Fadi’s titular leadership identity.

The initial attacks were not hand-to-hand combat, but rather the ‘thugs’ taking advantage of their elevated position on the bridge and off-ramp to fire pistols and hurl Molotov cocktails. Fadi joined in with a group trying to get MYU parked cars away from the range of the attackers. With most sit-in protestors still far removed from the front lines, using keys was not possible. Fadi and others broke the windows of many vehicles to disengage the parking brake and then roll the cars to safer position.

During the altercation Fadi ran back and forth several times between the front lines and the group, which included many female protestors. On one occasion he went to the police, who were standing by in the open area between the protest group and the front line attackers. He asked them to get involved, but they communicated they had no orders to do so. He then went to the army, which was deployed closer to the sit-in site, and told them eight people were not injured. When an officer stated only that those afraid should go home, Fadi brazenly asserted that they would not desert their sit-in; they would not go home unless dead. Yet as another Copt was there also screaming at the officers, Fadi left him to make his point and returned again to the group.

At one point as the conflict was increasing in intensity, Fadi lifted his arms to heaven, recited the Lord’s Prayer, and asked that God would not allow his children to be eaten by dogs, should they be killed today. It was a strange prayer, but Fadi remembered that it was said of the Copts who died in the Alexandria bombing that after the major remains were collected, the smaller body parts were left in the streets and consumed by dogs. Before he finished praying, however, someone interrupted him and rebuked him, saying this was no time for stillness. After this, Fadi reengaged.

On his way back to the front lines he found an enraged Copt, pouring water all over himself and picking up a gas canister to run with into the fray. Fadi tried to reason with him, trying to stop him, but somewhere in his effort he was struck with a blunt object in the middle of his back. Stunned, he fell, and was disabled for a period of time. After this he left, limping back to the protest area.

From here on out Fadi sought to make himself useful in the clinic, which was now overflowing with injured. Though possessing no medical training, he was stitching wounds and bandaging gashes. He purposed to avoid head injuries, out of fear he might do more harm than good. Yet even so on one occasion he was given some sort of medical ointment, and spread it upon the head of one injured to the point of revealing his skull.

Among the injured were some of the ‘thugs’, captured by the Coptic protestors. One who appeared to be a ringleader suffered deep cuts and was brought into the clinic. Fadi witnessed how he was told that if he confessed on videotape to his crimes they would treat his wounds; otherwise, they would leave him languishing in the clinic. Under such duress, he confessed to being paid 500 LE (about $85 US) to take part in the attack.

A more serious confrontation took place when the Copts purposed to capture one of the Salafis involved in the attack. They formed a small group, rushed forward, and then snatched one from the front lines, tossing him backwards into the Coptic throng. The one who apprehended the Salafi suffered several stab wounds in the effort. Once captured, however, the protestors beat the Salafi relentlessly. Fadi relates this was due to their rage over the attack on their sit-in; a supplemental factor may have been the pent up anger over allegations that Salafis orchestrated several attacks on Copts after the revolution.

Some of the Copts tried to intervene from their Christian convictions. Others, including Fadi, intervened for more practical reasons. First, he said, they wanted to get information from him. Second, they wanted to secure proof that Salafis were involved in the attack, lest the media portray it as simply the work of ‘remnants of the former regime’, as has become a common accusation. Third, Fadi was concerned that the repercussions could be severe should a Muslim die in their custody. In his efforts to stop the beating Fadi was kicked in the groin as Copts fought each other over the Salafi. Eventually he was freed and transferred to a nearby ambulance and taken to a hospital. He provided no confession.

Eventually the police became involved, firing tear gas in-between the two groups to disperse them. The direction of the Nile air, however, wafted the gas toward the sit-in area, choking those who stayed back either to avoid clashes or to help in the clinic. At this time objects also began raining down from the apartments of residents situated above the sit-in area. This enraged the Copts further, but Fadi recognized they were tossing onions, which are a known local antidote to the symptoms produced by tear gas. He made effort to calm down his fellow protestors.

Though the tear gas did put an end to the fighting, Fadi related that the sounds of gunfire started again as the ‘thugs’ pulled back and the tear gas clouds obscured vision. The Copts did not know if this was from the ‘thugs’ or the police, and Fadi began to run back toward the front lines to see what was happening. On the way, though, he stopped, vomited, and then collapsed from exhaustion and tear gas inhalation. Shortly thereafter all was calm once again.

In reflecting on the event, Fadi stated that the altercation showed the need for an emergency committee in the Maspero Youth Union. Initial shots were fired from the bridge around 8pm, but the actual fighting did not get underway until 10am. The whole time, Fadi states, many Copts were itching to rush and engage the attackers, sensing they were under threat. Yet during this two hour interval wiser heads might have been able to prevent the chaotic clashed did not take place, or were at least more strategic.

Fadi stated in retrospect that the Copts should have had more discipline to hold their line at the sit-in, instead of rushing out to meet the attacking group. In their haste they ran past the army and police, which can now accurately portray the clash as between two attacking parties. Had the Copts at least waited until their assailants passed by the authorities on their way to the sit-in, it would have forced the hand of the police and army. Either they would have to interfere and stop the attacking group, or else the evidence they stood by and did nothing would be clearly confirmed.

Such are the thoughts one may have after involvement in a crisis. There are always things which could have been done differently, words that should or should not have been said, and lessons earned through simple hard knocks.

It is not possible to confirm Fadi’s testimony, but it corresponds with earlier investigation into the Maspero sit-in. Yet just has humans have a tendency towards ‘fight or flight’ when facing conflict, they also may be tempted to exaggerate the severity of danger in their flight, or the degree of heroism in their fight. Could this have been true of Fadi? You can be the judge.

In reading the testimony, however, are you able to envision yourself in his place? What would you have done? Would you have been there in the first place?

Everyone has times when they imagine themselves in a potential conflict, writing a script for how they would behave. While this is likely useful, it can also be an exercise in self-flattery. Rarely will anyone fail in such a test.

Instead, the best preparation for a test of character is simply to live by your ideals in the day-to-day monotony of life. Temptations to cut corners or compromise will be many, and the stakes, as well as consequences, will be low. Giving in to these base urges whittles away character, imperceptibly, until a crisis comes and the test is failed before one realizes it is even being administered. Conversely, moral muscles are strengthened through such exercises of resistance.

Preparation is no key to success. People of great character may stumble, and virtue may arise from the unlikeliest of sources. Grace is needed for all, to prime the pump in advance and aftermath of a crisis.

Egypt languished without active moral exercise for years, but people summoned the courage to rise in revolution. While some, and perhaps many, transgressed boundaries the great majority acted with conviction and character. In the months that have followed there have been other challenges, but the revolutionary struggle has slipped back into routine monotony. Some seem fixated on maintaining the crisis, or beginning new ones, and their intensions on the whole should not be doubted. It can be easier to summon courage in a crisis. It is more difficult to maintain character in monotony.

Yet having passed their test, can Egyptians cement their gains? I do not mean the gains of the revolution, however legitimate they may be. I mean the gains of character, taking pride in their dignity, their unity, and their integrity. Rebuilding their country will require such strength, for not all will honor these virtues.

Finally, for the reader outside of Egypt, in what stage of life are you? Where will your character lead when put to the test? What little tests are faced now, far from the heat of battle?

May we all be strengthened, encouraging one another, giving grace in time of need. May Egypt, and all mankind, meet its many challenges.

 

note: I hope tomorrow or the next day to post an interview with Fadi about the Maspero Youth Union.

Published in: on September 27, 2011 at 8:20 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

The Walk to Preschool

With blocks in the preschool

Our family lives in the Cairo suburb of Maadi, which is an upper to upper-middle-class neighborhood composed of many foreigners. Our particular house, however, is toward the border region consisting of more ordinary Egyptians, living at a lower-middle-class neighborhood. We featured this area in an earlier post following the sectarian attacks in Imbaba, Cairo, wondering if something similar could take place nearby.

We would like to present the following video walk through our neighborhood, following the path from our home to where our middle daughter goes to preschool. In a previous post we described the circumstances forcing us to move our children from the Coptic Orthodox Church preschool, when it closed down. We did a previous walking video tour to this preschool (from our old home), which you can watch here.

The new preschool was opened just recently by one of the teachers from the church preschool, and we are happy to keep our daughters in her care. She opened the preschool in the ground floor apartment owned by the family, where she lives above. This area, however, causes us to ‘cross the tracks’, so to speak. It is an area we are not fully familiar with, but in time, walking this route, we will become so. Hopefully people also become accustomed to us.

Video One (nine minutes) – Starting off until the dividing road

Video Two (four minutes) – An unexpected pause in videoing

Video Three (three minutes) – Inside the preschool

For an epilogue, first watch the videos, and then read on …

At the door of the preschool garden

(more…)

Published in: on September 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

Religious Dialogue and Civil Society

Representatives of the major Egyptian religious communities

Under the slogan, ‘We live together, think together, work together’, The Egyptian Evangelical Synod of the Nile opened the Religious Dialogue and Civil Society Conference September 20-22, sponsored by the Konrad Adenuer Foundation. The conference featured an impressive array of participants among Egyptian religious and civil society leaders.

Opening remarks were moderated by Dr. Imad Abul Ghazi, the Egyptian Minister of Culture. He introduced each of the many religious representatives to follow.

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald is the Papal Ambassador to Egypt. He described the living together of Muslims and Christians in Egypt to be natural, but fragile. He lauded the efforts of the Azhar to create a ‘Family House’ in which religious leaders meet to discuss issues affecting Egypt and their communities. He urged, however, this effort to seep down to the grassroots – its imitation represented in each local community. He also described the necessity for religious communities to have a share in civil society to raise concerns against government policies. For this to be effective, he declared, religion must maintain some distance from the state.

Dr. Safwat al-Baiady is the President of the Egyptian Protestant Council of Churches. Following on the imitation of God who dialogues with man, he urged dialogue between men to transcend baser stages to the more effective. From Shared Monologue to Skillful Discussion to Reflective dialogue to, finally, Creative Dialogue, he declared that partners must enter dialogue as freemen, not slaves to their constituencies. The goal of this effort is not to defend yourself or to convince the other, but to reach common ground on the basis of friendship and love. This requires, he believed, not only self-confidence, but also confidence in the other.

Rev. Albert Ruiess is the President of the Synod of the Nile. He noted that the valuable process of reform often results in the emergence of different groups. This was noticeable in the Protestant Reformation, as it is noticeable in Egypt today. What is necessary is to find the elixir that can make Egypt one again. The Bible, he declares, teaches that humanity is one body with many different parts, and that the elixir needed to unify them is love.

Dr. Mahmoud Azab is the Azhar Advisor for Dialogue and Deputy to the Grand Sheikh Ahmad al-Tayyib. He stated that as the Azhar views Islam as a religion of mercy, so it also sees Christianity as a religion of love. He noted the historic cooperation between Muslims and Christians in Egypt, seen in their opposition to the British occupation, and more recently in the January 25 Revolution. He praised the efforts of the Azhar to guide discussion of the future Egyptian state between liberals and Islamists, declaring the Azhar document demanding Egypt to be a civil state was recognized by almost all parties. He also commended the ‘Family House’ initiative, in which Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic, and Anglican leaders join with the Azhar to promote dialogue, discuss interreligious issues, and confront extremist religious discourse, whether in churches, mosques, or on satellite television channels.

Bishop Mouneer of the Anglican Church

Dr. Mouneer Hanna is the Anglican Bishop for Egypt, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa. He provided examples of the commitment of Anglicans in Egypt to serve their communities, as well as of Anglicans worldwide and locally to engage in Muslim-Christian dialogue. He praised especially the agreement between the Azhar and the Archbishop of Canterbury, crafted after September 11, 2001, to conduct yearly sessions to better know one another. Finally, he urged application in Egypt of wisdom he learned from political leaders during a recent trip to China: I don’t care the color of the cat, as long as it catches the mouse. So in Egypt, religious affiliation should be unimportant in the civil state, as long as citizens contribute to the good of the nation.

The conference was held at the Movenpick Hotel in Media Production City, near 6 October City on the western outskirts of Cairo. Panel sessions included other well known Egyptian figures from the churches of Egypt, civil society, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Misnomers and Idealism in the Palestinian Question

As the Palestinian Authority prepares to request statehood from the United Nations, this essay will highlight a few terms which serve to obscure the public debate, as well as idealize the best way forward. It will not propose an answer to the ‘yes –no’ question faced by the United States at the UN, as either answer falls short of what will be offered as ideal.

The Right to Exist

This expression is often put forward to explain Israeli difficulties in securing peace with the Palestinians. To be sure, the official proclamation of Hamas to seek elimination of the Israeli state is an overwhelming obstacle to relations. Yet by seeking ‘the right to exist’ Israel overreaches.

Part of the difficulty this expression causes Palestinians and Hamas in particular is that the phrase not only establishes the Israeli state, it provides it positive moral approval. Before the prevalence of Zionism as a world Jewish movement there were limited numbers of Jews in the current geographical territories in dispute. There were also limited numbers of Palestinians, but this should not overshadow the fact the vast majority of current Jews in Israel came from elsewhere. Some of their land was purchased, some was taken through violence, terrorism, and displacement, and some was conquered through war.

Palestinians assert, rightly, that the majority of this land used to belong to them. That it does no longer is a political fact, but Israel does not simply demand recognition of their state, but also the right of its existence. Such moralistic language is a slap in the face to the thousands of Palestinian refugees forced from their homes.

Furthermore, the ‘right to exist’ expression is not the language of diplomacy and international relations. Do the Kurds have a right to exist? Do the South Sudanese? Do the French? Awkwardly, in light of American ‘Manifest Destiny’ history, does the United States? Countries come into existence through political norms of various means, and sometimes disappear. Israel is constituted among the number of legitimate states by the only organization with jurisdiction to declare in the nation-state system – the United Nations. Palestinians should admit to this reality and recognize Israel. They should not be forced to admit the morality of its existence.

Negotiated Settlement

It is right and proper that the outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be decided through negotiation. The basis for peace rests upon mutually agreed decisions taken to bring parties closer together. Ultimately, there is no substitute for this inevitability.

Yet the popular discourse in discrediting the Palestinian effort to achieve UN recognition in favor of a ‘negotiated settlement’ overlooks certain realities in the equation. First and foremost is Israel’s own status as a sovereign nation. This was not accomplished through a negotiated settlement, but by Jewish immigration, their armed militias, and ratification by the United Nations. Arab nations stood opposed to the decision, which was forced upon them by the international community. Improperly, they responded in war, which only hurt their cause further. Israel achieved its recognized status through the international means available. It is now seeking to deny Palestinians access to the same means.

Yet a further aspect of ‘negotiated settlement’ obscures the issues at hand. Israel has treated its settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem as a topic for negotiation. It similarly treats the issue of the right of return for Palestinian refugees. In doing so, however, it seeks to negotiate two items which stand patently against international law. Yet during recent ‘negotiations’ not only has Israel sought to balance its expropriated settlement territories with traded land elsewhere, it has continued expanding its settlement claims. It is fair enough for Palestinians to consider land swaps if they so choose, but they should not be forced to. The settlements are illegal, however much they may be facts-on-the-ground. Yes, human Jewish lives reside there, and after all this time their displacement would be problematic. Yet Israeli culpability in establishing the settlements should not be a subject of negotiation, but of condemnation. How can Palestinians negotiate over that which is illegal to begin with?

If Palestinians gain access to UN membership, they will have access to file suit against Israel in the International Court of Justice. Israel has successfully resisted UN resolutions to withdraw from the occupied territories. It has successfully resisted negotiations with the Palestinians to cede full control over the territories. Israel does face the thorny issue of Hamas-led resistance to mutual recognition, but it should also be noted that only sovereign nations can recognize each other. Recognition of Israel is a proper negotiating carrot for the Palestinians, one they cannot even offer until they receive a state of their own. Member status at the United Nations, even on observer basis, may achieve this through the international court.

De-legitimize Israel

This phrase has also been utilized in the rhetoric to discredit the Palestinian effort at the United Nations. Closer examination, however, reveals the exact opposite to be true. This explains the reticence of Hamas to support the UN process initiated by the Palestinian Authority.

If anything, the creation of a Palestinian state immediately legitimizes Israel. No longer will Palestinians be able to refuse recognizing Israel without threatening their credibility in the international community. Hamas and others still maintain international justice should discredit the very establishment of the Israeli state. With a UN recognized Palestine, this claim goes by the wayside. In all likelihood, with it will go the right of return for Palestinian refugees as well. They will now have their own state to return to, even if their original home was on the other side of the 1967 border.

What the Palestinian bid at the UN does do, however, is de-legitimize Israeli policies in the occupied territories. This, though explained above, includes also disproportionate Israeli access to West Bank resources and criss-crossing the territory with settler-only lines of transportation. By moving these issues to an international forum, Palestinians do bring into question issues of legitimacy. Their overall message, however, legitimizes the Israeli state, as is proper and good.

The Arguments for No

If the above reasoning is correct, it is difficult to imagine why Israel is opposing the measure, unless it wishes to annex the territories of Judea and Samaria entirely. By granting Palestinians their state, it wins the international community as a partner to resisting any terrorism which issues from it, which would now be state-sponsored unless rigorously opposed. Perhaps more importantly to many, it also safeguards the status of Israel as a Jewish state, as the overwhelming Jewish majority would not be threatened demographically by the inclusion of additional Palestinians, either refugees seeking return or original residents in the occupied territories.

Should then the United States, with enthusiastic Israeli support, vote yes? There are a few problems lingering to suggest no. The ideal solution offered as well aims beyond it, however much it might threaten the advantages of yes.

In addition to the intransigence of Hamas, the Palestinian people suffer from a lack of true representation on the part of all their leaders. While a recent poll does suggest that 83% of Palestinians favor the move for statehood, neither Fatah nor Hamas has received a mandate through elections in quite some time. The only protests in Palestine during the Arab Spring have been against their nominal leadership, refusing their stridency in maintaining a political division. If Palestine receives statehood would the people be able to transcend this division? Would Fatah and Hamas allow them to? It remains to be seen.

Secondly and more seriously, immediate statehood would likely cement the animosity between Israel and Palestine, establishing a cold war even if there is official peace. Such a war could quickly get hot as the new Palestinian government would face the question of what to do with the Jewish settlements within its borders. Would it consider them Palestinian citizens? Would it violently uproot them? Would the settlers institute violence to seek maintenance of their now bygone privileged societal position? It is a thorny issue.

Thirdly and problematically, how do the West Bank and Gaza represent a functioning state given the lack of geographical congruity with Israel in between? As a tiny, landlocked entity save for the Gaza strip, Palestine would be barely a political district in the makeup of many countries. How could it function as an independent nation?

To vote no in the UN would throw these questions back to the negotiating table, and it is not certain a solution would be found there, either. Yet which outcome is more dangerous, yes or no?

An Ideal Solution?

It is admitted that the move away from negotiations is a move away from the ideal. A unilateral action towards statehood threatens to put the Palestinian question into the hands of the international court. While this step may greatly improve the Palestinian negotiating position, it hardens hearts and relationships, as true peace can only come from mutual embrace.

Calling for an ideal mutual embrace, however, moves the discussion from the realm of geopolitics into the realm of morality. Does the current situation in Israel/Palestine represent morality? Certainly not, on all sides. Would an imposed two-state solution represent morality? Sadly, no. Could a negotiated settlement represent a moral position? Perhaps, but these efforts have been underway for decades, and the political will seems to be lacking on both sides.

A mutual embrace, for now, purposely sidelines the fact that two peoples are largely in hostility. A solution of mutual embrace will assume the very difficult work of reconciliation. Yet the core of this idea is the undoing of two mutually contradicting narratives: A state for the Jews, and a state for the Palestinians. Roughly speaking, it calls for a one state solution.

Label this state what you want, though in fact its name will be one of the contentious issues to solve. ‘Israel’ – ‘Israelistine’ – ‘Paliel’ – ‘Israel-Palestine’ – ‘Palestine-Israel’. The very exercise of naming demonstrates the deep ethno-centrality of both sides. It is good for a people to have their own state. Is it better – more ideal – for an intermixed people to live together in one state, peacefully?

Admitting to this notion would require Zionist-inclined Jews to give up the idea of a Jewish state. Though deeply challenging, not all Jews are Zionists, and for most of history many Jews believed it a sin to seek reestablishment of a state before the appearance of the Messiah. That there is a current Jewish state is a political fact, may be the will of God, and is not immoral. But is there something better?

Admitting to this notion would require anti-Semitic Palestinians (and other Arabs) to give up the idea of a Jew-free Middle East. Though deeply challenging, not all Palestinians are anti-Semites, and for most of history many Arabs have lived peacefully side-by-side with Jews. That there are Palestinians who question Zionism-as-racism is a political fact, may be the will of God, and is not immoral. But is there something better?

What is better is the ideal of a civil democratic state with equal rights for all its citizens. Jew, Christian, and Muslim would each contribute to the success of the nation. Significant biases and economic disparities would need to be overcome. This was challenging with the reunification of Germany; it would be doubly so in this case. Yet as an ideal – that men might live together and form a representative government accountable by law – this is a more sublime goal for which to strive. In contrast to the current clamor at the United Nations, it is nearly heavenly.

Alas, ideals fall easy prey to politics and reality. Yet men of ideals can change both their politics and their reality. What is necessary is vision and commitment. Few so far have adopted the vision of one-state reconciliation; perhaps in the outcome of the UN process, if the United States does indeed vote no, more will find it.

I myself lack the full vision and courage to advocate the ideal. Even the attempt to define an ideal is subjective and often naïve. Problems in application are myriad and obvious.

Yet resistance to an ideal is often a refuge in the baser instincts of human nature. No ideal can come to be in willful ignorance of human depravity, yet the human struggle calls for virtue and sacrifice in pursuit of worthy ideals. Peace between Jews and Palestinians should certainly qualify. This is but one solution, perhaps more hopeful, in the path to its reality.

 

Related Post: 1967 and the Right of Return

Erdogan in Egypt: Teenage Turkey Tests Her Limits

Erdogan with his image of prominence, popularity

I had the opportunity to witness the keynote address of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on September 13. Beginning a tour of Arab Spring nations, he met with military, political, and business leaders in Cairo, and then spoke generally to the nation from the historic Opera House, in a session hosted by Cairo University. The following are a few highlights from his speech, concluding with some personal observations:

  • For a lecture scheduled to begin at 4pm, Erdogan began speaking at 6:45pm. Attendees had been asked to arrive no later than 3pm for security.
  • The audience chanted continually during the speech, lauding Erdogan for his regional politics.
  • Erdogan praised Egypt and her revolution, as well as historic Egyptian-Turkish ‘sisterhood’.
  • A devout Muslim, Erdogan laced his speech with Quranic references, though in a different setting he praised the virtues of a ‘secular’ state which values religion.
  • He believed the spirit of liberation in the Arab world was spreading to America and Europe to sensitize the whole world against injustice.
  • Turkey and the Arab world will dismiss orientalist myths that the region cannot support democracy or strong economies.
  • In a nod to protestor concerns and as a prod to military leadership, Erdogan stated the coming elections should be held according to a set schedule.
  • Erdogan highlighted the dramatic increase in trade between Turkey and Egypt, and pledged it would only increase further in the future.
  • He declared that Egypt is Turkey’s key to Africa, just as Turkey is Egypt’s key to Europe.
  • Erdogan spoke of his efforts to get Syrian President Assad to reform, but stated he can no longer trust him in his pledges.
  • Alarmingly and surprisingly, Erdogan predicted that Syria will now face sectarian problems, which are played upon by foreign forces.
  • He stated that the illegitimate policies of Israel are the biggest obstacle to peace in the region, especially in her disregard for international law.
  • Erdogan prompted the greatest applause when he reiterated Turkey’s diplomatic efforts against Israel will continue until an apology is received for Turkish deaths aboard last year’s flotilla.
  • He also condemned as illegitimate the deaths of Egyptian officers in an Israeli raid across the Sinai border; he also offered his condolences to their families.
  • He expressed hope the Israeli people would realize their settlements are illegitimate, and that they are leading the nation into difficulties.
  • Erdogan pledged to hold Israeli leaders accountable while expressing he bore no ill will against the Israeli citizen, who like all must be respected on account of their creator.
  • He promised to always stand side by side with Palestine, hoping for an independent state in the framework of the United Nations.
  • Erdogan counseled the United States to reconsider its stance toward Palestinian statehood, to better accord with traditional concerns of justice in American foreign policy.
  • He believed Fatah and Hamas needed to keep from being divided and to love each other.
  • Erdogan predicted the Egyptian economy would rebound after elections, and promised that Turkey would stand by Egypt’s side forever.
  • Erdogan closed by announcing he cannot forget, and will never forget, what was accomplished in Tahrir Square.

Erdogan addressing the crowd

I have few strong opinions on Turkey. The nation has done well to craft for itself a strong economy and independent foreign policy. All is not perfect, of course: Turkey has major problems with her Kurdish minority, and human rights organizations complain about a lack of journalistic freedom and other issues. The Armenian massacre and the division of Cyprus are long unresolved issues still staining Turkish public image. Yet there is little denying the accomplishments of her democracy as well as her emergence from supervisory military rule.

I wonder, however, if Turkey in recent weeks has become like a teenager in an adult body seeking to assert his newfound power. Sometimes bravado is found right, as in Turkey’s early calls for Mubarak to heed the will of protestors. Sometimes bravado is found empty, as in Turkish impotence to stand up to Syria. Sometimes bravado takes on unwise enemies, as in Turkey’s threat to freeze EU relations if the presidency – assigned by rotation – is awarded to Cyprus. And sometimes bravado can be for its own sake, as in Turkey’s increased tension with Israel.

To be sure, Turkey’s diplomatic row with Israel is a matter of principle. Turkey opposes the Gaza blockade and the illegal settlements in the West Bank. Turkish citizens were killed by Israeli commandos in international waters, no matter how much provocation may have been directed at the soldiers. Yet the feeling is that Turkey’s response to Israel is measured and calculated. Is Turkey using her Israel policy to enhance her regional power?

Certainly Turkey is placing Israel in a no win situation. An apology conveys guilt, and admission of guilt can precede liability. Israel’s soldiers, though the initiators of overt hostility (as opposed to the symbolic hostility of breaking the blockade), were severely attacked. No nation will sell out its military to appease a demanding neighbor, unless her soldiers were clearly at fault (which remains disputed, of course).

Yet Turkey’s announcement of downgrading diplomatic relations came immediately on the heels of Egyptian outrage at her military leadership for failing to take a hard line with Israel following the death of her officers in a cross-border Israeli military raid. Turkey had already been lauded by many liberals and Islamists alike as a possible model for democratic transition. Shortly thereafter the Arab Spring diplomatic tour begins.

Beyond rhetoric, the main substantial element of this tour is the promotion of business. This seems shrewd. While the West and the IMF offer loans and the Gulf States offer cash influx, Turkey seeks job creation. It remains to be seen how much capital remains in Turkish hands, but this is the appropriate action of a growing economy, and may well serve to buttress Egypt’s economic needs as well. Is there more behind the courtship, however?

Though Egyptian populism celebrated Erdogan’s arrival, political leaders – both liberal and Islamist – were more cautious. Despite claims to historic ‘sisterhood’, Arab-Turk relations have not always been rosy. Is Turkey carpet-bagging on Arab Spring gains?

It remains to be seen if the Turkish teenager is ready for adulthood. Turkey has been an ally to the West, while maintaining relationships with Syrian and Iran. She has been an Islamic model, while maintaining relationships with Israel. Turkey’s efforts to craft a ‘Zero Problems’ foreign policy are coming apart at the seams, but this could simply be the teenager outgrowing his clothes (after significant muscle flexing).

Can Turkey stand as an independent actor on the world’s stage? Can she continue to risk offenses against entrenched Western positions? Is Turkey too big for her britches, or has she reached geopolitical maturity? Perhaps like a teenager, the only way to know is to test her limits.

 

Published in: on September 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm  Comments (1)  
Tags: , , , , ,

Friday Prayers in Egypt

God,

Give Egypt patience, hope, stamina, and faith. As events wind down, they are also heating up. Guide Egypt through these critical days.

A protest scheduled today attracted only a few hundred people. It seems the revolutionary phase is ending, and the state building phase is underway. Election laws are being issued, parties and candidates jockey for position, and one wonders if the street is engaged at all. Yet it may be premature to declare the revolution over; major protests are threatened if the elections are postponed, while labor and student groups continue to agitate despite an increase in legal consequence.

God, does idealism have expiration? Does pragmatism necessitate manipulation? How should hope and faith balance with patience and stamina? Give revolutionaries, politicians, public servants, and leaders a keen will to continue seeing Egypt through to freedom, peace, dignity, and democracy. May they get their hands dirty but keep their hearts clean. Give strength, God, give belief.

God, give perspective. Help the people see and appreciate what has been accomplished, even as vision is necessary to keep the end goal in mind. Regardless of the system to come, God, may it be one that respects the people, hold leaders accountable, and operates without corruption. May it facilitate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the universal and most moral sense.

May those now engaged in crafting this system respect one another, putting the public good over individual or party interest. God, mutual suspicions abound, and may be deserved. Yet do not let fear drive the creation of the new state, God. May it be built upon sublime principles which honor your creation. May it yield to majority without infringing on minority. May it acknowledge the inviolability of the individual, and the nobility of group and custom. God, protect Egypt, but more, unleash her. Give the people rise to shape their own destiny. May she know peace; may she know strength. God, may this be for the good of all.

Amen.

Published in: on September 16, 2011 at 8:20 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

Egyptian Religious Groups Denounce Attack on Israeli Embassy

On September 9 three thousand Egyptians gathered at the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, cheering the destruction of a recently erected wall around the complex, after which nearly one hundred protestors stormed the embassy and threw official paperwork to the crowd below. The incident was a continuation of rising tensions between Egypt and Israel, following the accidental killing of six Egyptian officers during an Israeli cross-border raid pursuing Palestinian militants in Sinai.

Minister of Information Osama al-Heikal issued strong condemnation. “The incident was an insult to Egypt – it is not fair to link it to the January revolution (which) had been a genuine, peaceful revolt that sought to bring down and replace the old regime.”

Religious spokesmen echoed his sentiment, including Christian voices from the protest itself. Earlier in the day tens of thousands of mostly youthful and liberal protestors gathered in Tahrir Square, pressuring the government on several demands, including an immediate end to the use of military trials for civilians. Among the groups represented was the Maspero Youth Union, a mostly Coptic Christian organization supporting religious and political equality.

General Coordinator Rami Kamel stated, “The incident breaks all diplomatic protocols and will result in trouble for Egypt. It is our role to pressure the government in both domestic and foreign policy, but we reject the breaking of the wall and the storming of the embassy.”

Official Muslim representation also denounced the attack. Abdel Muti al-Bayoumi is a member of the Islamic Research Academy of al-Azhar University, widely respected throughout the Islamic world as its most venerable institution. Speaking from sharia law he defended the sanctity of all foreign delegates. “The Israel ambassador resides legally in Egypt on the basis of a diplomatic visa, which was granted by the Egyptian government. In sharia law this represents ‘aqd al-aman, or a compact of security, which guarantees safety to the beneficiary.”

Even the conservative Salafi Muslim groups derided the attack as “not thought out”, and implicitly accepted the peace treaty with Israel, though with a wholly different perspective. The Salafi Call Organization stated the attack “will work in favor of Israel and will transform them from perpetrators to victims. The focus will shift from our demands to amend the Camp David agreement to Israel’s calls for help to protect their embassy in Egypt. Egyptians are united in their hate for Israel, thank God. We must fight cultural normalization [with Israel] and we should push for the international isolation of Israel.”

Bishop Marcos, chairman of the Coptic Orthodox Church Public Relations Committee, concurred that the Egyptian government should take a suitable response to Israeli violations on the Egyptian border, though he declined recommending specific steps as it was not the place of the church. Nevertheless, he condemned the attack on the embassy and stated all the wise men of Egypt do likewise.

“This event is not good for our relations with other countries; we must respect all nations and even our enemies.” Though he did not know who the perpetrators were, he refused to see the incident as evidence of sectarian problems or increasing Islamic identity.

Storming the Israeli Embassy in Cairo: The Greater Context

Breaking down the barrier outside the embassy

Seven months since the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, the nation is still in the process of democratic transition, and the focus of the world has greatly receded. Yesterday, September 9, could threaten to draw back the world’s eye, and possibly serve to confirm many misgivings held about the readiness of Egypt for democracy. It would be a mistake to judge so simply; hopefully this context will fill in the gaps over recent events.

On a superficial level the actions of Egyptian protestors to storm the Israeli Embassy has parallels to the Iranian Revolution of 1979. One narrative current is that just as the Iranian protests began as a liberal movement only to be overwhelmed by extremist religious forces, the Egyptian revolution may bear a similar fate. While this is still an open possibility, feared by many both within Egypt and abroad, yesterday’s events do not reinforce this narrative.

The Israeli Embassy is located at the top of an Egyptian highrise apartment surrounding by like buildings in the Cairo neighborhood of Giza, along a major thoroughfare. Protests at the embassy have been frequent since the departure of Mubarak, but have always remained peaceful, though vitriolic. On an earlier occasion several months ago protests were dismissed forcefully by security personnel.

The most recent surge in anger against Israel, however, began three weeks ago following the death of five Egyptian border guards in Sinai, at the hands of the Israeli military. That day Israel suffered a horrible terrorist attack, believed conducted by militants from Gaza who crossed into Israel through the demilitarized Sinai border. In pursuit of these criminals Israel crossed the Egyptian border in violation of the Camp David Accords, and killed the Egyptian officers accidentally in the process. Israel issued a statement of ‘great regret’ at their deaths, but stopped short of issuing an official apology. They have also resisted Egyptian calls to conduct a joint investigation.

For several days afterwards protestors gathered at the Embassy, chanting for the expulsion of the ambassador. One protestor even scaled the building to its roof and replaced the Israeli flag with an Egyptian one. This breach of diplomatic protocol was celebrated widely, with ‘Flagman’ (punning off Spiderman) receiving the gift of an apartment from the Giza governor. It was clear that on this occasion the people were allowed to vent their anger. On the diplomatic front, however, the government issued equivocal statements, drawing the frustration of the people. After a few days the protests subsided, and security forces cleared the area of the few remaining protestors.

A few days later the Egyptian government contracted to build a wall in front of the Israeli Embassy, stating it was meant to protect residents of the area from any future demonstrations. ‘Egypt above all’ was written prominently across its face, but it is difficult to imagine the wall being received as anything other than a provocation – resembling the security fence/apartheid wall in Israel/the West Bank, depending on perspective. Yet a scheduled protest at the wall a few days ago fell flat, drawing only tens of demonstrators.

In the final days of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month of fasting in which protests largely subsided, a call was issued for a major demonstration on September 9, labeled ‘The Friday of Correcting the Path’. Its main demand was to put an end to the military trial of civilians, but also included a call for a clear timetable to transfer power to civilian rule, judicial independence, and further purging state institutions of former regime figures. Though Islamist political forces had earlier spoken out forcefully against the military trial of civilians, their largest representatives boycotted this protest, opting instead to not put additional pressure on the ruling military council. The day of the protest between 10-35,000 demonstrators descended on Tahrir Square. These were mostly liberal groups and youthful revolutionaries, whose numbers, though impressive, did not measure up to the numerical strength of earlier protests. Instead of concentrating solely at Tahrir Square, however, bands dispersed for separate protests at the Interior Ministry, the People’s Assembly, the Radio and Television Building – and the Israeli Embassy.

Ever since forcibly dismissing a sit-in protest at Tahrir Square on August 1, which had lasted three weeks and prevented all traffic from accessing this major hub, the security forces had occupied the central garden area of Tahrir and prevented all protests from accessing the area. The government relented, however, to allow the September 9 protest, but warned they would be responsible for their own security, and the police withdrew from the area, as well as from other major government institutions. At the Interior Ministry, for example, protestors were able to draw graffiti on the walls and remove the official insignia, while security restrained itself behind the walls.

In addition to the liberal and youth demonstrators, however, there was a surprise participant in the protests – soccer hooligans. The three largest teams in the Egyptian division each have their own groups of rowdy followers, who often clash with each other as well as the police. These groups had contributed greatly to the Egyptian revolution, providing discipline and organization – along with the Muslim Brotherhood – when their demonstrations came under attack. Since then, however, they have returned to soccer.

A few days before September 9 there was a relatively minor soccer match involving one of these squads, at the end of which the hooligans began chanting slogans against the police and the now incarcerated former minister of the interior. It is not clear if the provocation was also physical, but the police thereafter rushed into the crowd and began beating the hooligans. Nearly a hundred people on both sides suffered injuries, and the hooligans vowed revenge after several of their group were arrested.

This event rallied the three different groups of hooligans together, who descended united to Tahrir Square. This swelled the numbers and vibrancy of the protest, but also de-dignified it, as they spent the day chanting curses against the police. Yet for the most part, however, they and the other protestors exercised restraint, with one group even issuing a public declaration it withdrew from the protest at the end of the day, to shield itself should violence occur later from unknown ‘thugs’. This hooligan group had split off from the main demonstration in Tahrir to protest directly at the Ministry of Interior.

A second group, however, went to the Israeli Embassy. They and many others carried hammers, seeking to destroy the recently erected wall. Numbers swelled as Egyptians, frustrated by the response of the government to the border killings, compared the sharp rise in condemnation issued to Israel by Turkey, in response to the death of its citizens on board last year’s Freedom Flotilla. It took several hours to demolish the wall, as protestors cheered and encouraged joyously. Some even repeated the action of Flagman, and lowered the Israeli flag once again.

Around this time a group of unknown protestors, numbering about 100, rushed into the building housing the embassy and ascended the floors, breaking into at least part of the upper complex. They then proceeded to hurl documents to the crowd below, seemingly seeking a Wikileaks-type moment. About an hour later, security arrived en masse and bombarded the area with tear gas. Street fighting erupted thereafter throughout the night, injuring around 1000 and killing three.

Israel’s response was swift. The recently returned ambassador – not at the embassy – evacuated Cairo with his family and staff. Israel issued a statement asking for the United States to help secure the embassy – clearly a slap in the face to the Egyptian government. It denied that protestors had entered the embassy and had only apprehended pamphlets. Israeli sources also state the Egyptian government conducted an emergency raid to free six people inside the embassy. I have not seen confirmation of this from the Egyptian side, but neighboring residents interviewed stated the embassy was empty, and had been for the last three weeks. A friend connected with the US Embassy in Cairo stated, however, that it was fully conceivable personnel could be in the embassy at such an odd time over the weekend.

In the days to come more facts will emerge. For now it is hoped this greater context will demonstrate the dissimilarity to the American hostage crisis in Iran in 1979. First and foremost, this was the action of either liberal activists, soccer hooligans, or, as many revolutionaries have accused in like incidents over the past several months, ‘thugs’ working on behalf of the former regime to stir up trouble and ruin the reputation of the Egyptian revolution. It was not done by Islamic extremists, who were wholly absent from the day’s protest. Most Egyptians find the politics of the Israeli government reprehensible in their treatment of the Palestinian issue. Large numbers oppose the peace treaty, and not a few would apply their approbation on the Jews as a whole. The storming of the embassy, however, had more to do with the work of a small minority, and the aftermath was a battle with security, reminding many of its severity under the Mubarak regime.

At the same time, it should be recognized that many Egyptians hold no ill will toward Jews, and have no desire to enter into war with Israel. Almost none would defend the policies of Israel, and most would have the treaty adjusted. The masses were enthused following the revolution that Egyptian foreign policy might more closely follow the popular will. Yet harboring conviction that ‘peace with Israel’ was largely imposed on Egypt from abroad through the grip of Mubarak, six months since his departure Egyptians find they still have no voice on this issue. It is not that Egyptians wish a rush to war; they desire instead a reflection of sovereignty.

Yet some do call for a semblance of war in terms of a peaceful march on Jerusalem, ready to die as martyrs by the millions. While this tends toward being an extreme Islamic position, ratcheting up rhetoric against Israel is an easy populist political play. The storming of the embassy was a shameful act. While most Egyptians condemned the action, many were eager to compare its lack of real damage with the blockade of Gaza, expanding settlements, and other breaches of international law issuing real suffering on Palestinians, for which there is less world outrage.

By all accounts Egyptians should act from respect for diplomatic laws and agreements. There is far too much dismissive anti-Israeli sentiment on the street, reflective of abject rejection of this enemy. September 9, however, was not the first step toward the anti-Western takeover of the revolution. It was either a reaction driven by frustration of impotence on the Israeli issue, or a counterrevolutionary measure to contrast with the ‘stability’ of the previous regime. More than likely both factors are in play, besides others.

It is a worrisome sign, by all accounts. If the Israeli Embassy can be violated, then what about other embassies, institutions, or places of worship? Many people note that the term ‘revolution’ is a misnomer for the experience of Egypt. Revolutions are violent, conducted by people with insatiable ambition, frustration, or hunger. Such ambition may exist among Islamists, but their conduct has been generally wise and prudent. Such frustration exists among liberals and the youth, and their frustration has amplified in the transitional period. Such hunger exists among much of the lower and working classes.

Too much should not be made of these possibilities. Storming the Israeli Embassy, though incredibly foolish and illegal, was not particularly violent. Egyptians are not a violent people by nature, as has been confirmed a hundred times over during the last half year. The outcome of the ‘revolution’ is still an open matter, and progress is needed toward the promised democracy. What is needed now on the part of the West is not a knee-jerk reaction to events, but continued support for a democratic transition. This may well produce anti-Western or anti-Israeli policies. Yet it will also produce sovereignty; that its government might be of, by, and for the people. This is what the Egyptian people desire. They do not desire Iran.

For a sample prayer about these matters, click here. Please note it was written before the embassy was actually stormed.

Published in: on September 10, 2011 at 9:27 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 274 other followers