Israel, Zionism and the Media

Tag: cairo

Israeli Embassy in Cairo – what if…

On Friday night, after prayers, a mob of several thousand Egyptians attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo.

Previously, the Egyptian authorities had raised a defensive wall around the embassy but that seems to have acted like a red rag to a bull.

A determined mob broke down the wall and entered the compound, torching it and burning the Israeli flag for the second time in a month.

Some reports suggested that this group was Islamist, others that it was Communists trying to destabilise the country.

What is clear is that several thousand turned up to break in to the compound. More than a thousand were injured and 3 actually died, which is insane.

Meanwhile, the Egyptian police stood back and did nothing. As the mob hammered at the walls and door where the remaining few embassy staff members were huddled, the members of staff of the Israeli embassy were in contact with Prime Minister Netanyahu and asked him to convey their final messages to their loved ones. They were clearly in fear of their life.

According to some reports President Obama called the Egyptian government and demanded they honour their obligations under international law.

Some say Obama even threatened the Egyptians with dire consequences if they did not act to save the embassy staff.

Soon after, commandos rescued the remaining Israelis and smuggled them out of the embassy wearing Arab attire.

Avi Mayer (@avimayer) has reported via Twitter from several sources. Here are some snippets:

I don’t get it. When Netanyahu/Barak called, Tantawi was unavailable. When Obama/Panetta called, he picked up. Is he screening our calls?

Walla: Fearing #Cairo protesters would pretend to be rescuers, #Egypt commandos used “secret sign” and #Israel emb guards opened door.

When I tweeted about the incident earleir this evening a received a couple of brusque rejoinders including this one which I answered vias a retweet:

RT @fat_lam: @RayPCook at least no Israeli was killed, #israel on other hand did kill innocents<<what do you think would have happened to the #Israelis if they had not been saved by #Egyptian army?

This links in to the presumed spark to this incident. Over a week ago now 8 Israelis were killed in separate incidents near Eilat on the border with Egypt when terrorists fired automatic weapons and artillery rounds at a car, a bus and IDF soldiers.

As the IDF pursued the perpetrators and despite every effort not to hit anyone on the Egyptian side, several Egyptian soldiers were killed by Israeli fire. One of the reasons given is that the terrorists were actually dressed in Egyptian uniforms or something similar.

The tweeter above is not concerned with Israeli deaths just the Egyptian ones despite an expression of regret from Israel.

This is the cover story for the Egyptian mob.

The truth is that no excuse is required for a mob raised on an anti-Semitic diet of Jew-hatred.

Egyptian clerics are often very keen to demonise Israel and the Jews.

Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion appear to be standard reading and are freely available.

Israel is blamed for every calamity in a press which is often hysterically (in both senses) obsessed with Israel hatred: when a tourist was attacked and killed by a shark in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Mossad were blamed;

an Israeli is currently under arrest for spying even though there does not appear to be a case to answer;

during the demonstrations in Tahrir Square foreign journalists were accused of being Israeli spies and the CBS reporter Lara Logan was brutally sexually assaulted and accused of being an Israeli in February.

Even yesterday the appearance of a female journalist was met with accusations that she was Israeli and she had to be rapidly whisked away.

So it appears that the Arab Spring has become an excuse for mob rule and taking the law into ones own hands in certain sections of Egyptian society.

These same people who accuse Israel of breaking international law are only too quick to do the same themselves.

There are some positives:

The Egyptian authorities have arrested and arraigned several of the trouble-makers

A Bahraini government spokesman tweeted:

Not protecting the Israeli embassy in Cairo is a clear violation of the Vienna Convention of 1961 on diplomatic relations

I’m not completely au fait with the relations between Bahrain and Israel, but given the almost uniform hatred of the Arab world against Israel, this is a very decent thing to have said, and it constitutes a reprimand.

But here’s the ‘whatif’ bit. The guards inside the embassy had guns. They even fired some warning shots in the air according to Avi Mayer (@avimayer). They were given permission to open fire on the crowd should their lives be in danger.

Now here’s the thing; imagine that – they asked permission to save their own lives knowing that if it came to this the diplomatic fallout would inevitably go against Israel.

So, what if the commandos were a little late and the mob had battered down a wall and there were the guards, guns drawn, and the mob attacked them, presumably filled with jihadi zeal and the prospect of paradise for dying whilst trying to kill some Jews.

Does this sound familiar? Think Mavi Marmara, a somewhat different arena, yet, nevertheless, armed Israelis with no intention of lethal conflict are faced with a baying mob ready to lynch them.

So what if the Israelis fired, killed nine or ten of their attackers and then the Egyptian cavalry arrived and saved them.

What would the world have said? Would they be condemned for using excessive force as the Palmer report found?

With more Egyptian blood on their hands would Israel have been blamed for its citizens defending what is, in international law, sovereign territory?

What would all the leftists say? What would the Guardian say? I can take a pretty good guess; they would have found a way to condemn the Israelis. They would quote members of the mob saying that they had no intention of hurting anyone.

Some elements in Israel would call for an end to the peace treaty. The UN would have demanded an investigation.

Yet, the situation is not dissimilar to the Mavi Marmara. If a mob is coming at you with clearly lethal intent, what is a proportionate response?

And, ‘what if’ the Egyptian commandos got there too late and six Israelis were lynched? General rejoicing across the Arab and Muslim world whilst their governments would disingenuously condemn the deaths and, at the same time, try to ‘explain’ them in the ‘context’ of the ‘incident’ near Eilat.

Israelis would demonstrate outside the Egyptian embassy – maybe. But as now, and as always, Israelis would respect the Egyptian embassy physically.

It should be noted that before the mob attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo, a man was arrested in Tel Aviv for throwing a stone at the Egyptian embassy. Throwing a stone. One man. So much for the evil, murderous Israelis so often characterised across the world.

If the Israelis had killed anyone we would have a third incident, along with the Flotilla and the terrorist attack on the highway near Eilat where Israelis killed those trying to kill them and were condemned for doing so.

With a poll showing the majority of Egyptians wanting to end the 32 year treaty with Israel, despite the commendable, but somewhat belated actions of the Egyptian government, it is clear that when a new government is elected it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that it will do so on an anti-Israel ticket.

Additionally, 60%, according to another poll, want to restore Sharia Law.

The prospects for a continued peace with Israel look fragile and would only be maintained for strategic reasons rather than a wish for peace.

 

Obama and the concept of even-handedness

I’ve been away for a bit and it’s given me a chance to mull over what President Obama (isn’t it strange how quickly we’ve got used to that) was up to in Cairo.

Many observers have taken this speech apart and pointed out how it has ushered in a whole new era of US-Israel politics where Israel can no longer get a free pass from the US and where the new administration has shifted US policy to a tough stance with the Israeli government on the question of settlements and, to a lesser extent, on easing restrictions in Gaza. The impression given is that it is Israel that has to make these concessions to move the peace process forward and that these demands are part of the Road Map agreements, blah, blah.

Many have pilloried the Cairo speech, many have praised it. It all depends on your viewpoint. If you have thought that Israel is the main impediment to the “peace process” then you will applaud Obama’s “tough love” stance. If you have believed that the Palestinians’ refusal to engage honestly in final status negotiations is the problem, then you will be appalled by Obama’s speech.

As so many have picked over the bones of the speech since the beginning of last month, I want to concentrate on the “big idea” behind the speech and why Obama wanted to follow the path of “even-handedness” .

Ah. But was it even-handed or was it heavily biased toward the Muslim world which was such a sea-change for an American president that it just seemed even-handed.

OK. Let’s just say the intention was even-handedness, not in the speech itself but in positioning the US in the eyes of the Muslim world as a more honest broker. To do this Obama had to be seen to be tough with Israel whilst paying little more than lip-service to what the Palestinians and the Arab world have to deliver.

Unfortunately for Israel, to redress the balance (or what Obama wanted to be seen as balance) he had to come down heavy on Netanyahu. This is transparent and not particularly credible posturing; most Arab and Muslim politicians said, “fine, but now we want action”. Subsequent exchanges between Jerusalem and Washington have gradually turned up the heat, evinced responses, but not had very much obvious effect on Israeli government policy.

Indeed, what is clear, is that the Israelis are keen on pursuing their own agenda to push forward the peace process and the two prominent signs of this are firstly, a rapid series of roadblock dismantlements on the West Bank accompanied by the recent “handover” to the Palestinian Authority of responsibility for day to day security in Judea and Samaria. Secondly, a measured expression of  the need for and the reasons behind Israel’s demand that the PA recognises Israel as the national home of the Jewish people. Of course, the settlement issue does not go away but there is a marked improvement in the life of Palestinians on the West Bank. Gaza and Hamas are a different matter, however.

But back to Obama.

Why ingratiate himself and his country with the Arab world? What are the US interests in any peace settlement in the Middle-East? Why does Obama want to be seen to be even-handed? What are the US national interests in rapprochement with the Muslim world, especially the Arab world and Iran? Is this the vanity of power? Does Obama see himself as a Messianic figure conferring peace and goodwill to the world? If so, what about North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba?

The answer is more simplistic than than the real issues that lie behind the questions. What is the major threat to the free world at the moment? Islamist terror and the spread of Jihadi philosphy. But, if Pakistan falls, if Afghanistan is re-Talebanised, if Iraq falls apart, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons?

The major impediment to neutralising Islamist extremism, according to the simplistic narrative of the US government, is the Arab-Israeli conflict. If you get that out of the way, all done and dusted, everyone reconciled, not only is that a huge Obama-legacy moment but it removes the excuse of the Israli-Palestinian conflict to foster the anti-US animus in the Muslim world. It takes the legs from under the Jihadi movement because the conflict which most animates them has been removed.

So goes the narrative. In fact, it’s a charade built on a hope, built on delusion.

Obama may well believe that he can persuade moderate Arabs and Muslims to defeat the Jihadis amongst them and move their societies into the 21st century, engaging with the West whilst retaining their own culture and history. A world where East and West meets and each learns from the other with mutual benefit and increased prosperity. If you remove the main cause of conflict, the world will be a better and safer place and we will will bathe in the light of the Pax Obama.

Nice story. But it is all based on a major misconception that Israel, Zionism and the Palestinians are the real cause of  Jihadism. In fact, they are just an excuse, a recruiting seregant, a source of malign and indignant rhetoric.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not end Islamism. The Jihadis will only be satisfied with the destruction of Israel and the Islamisation of the West. The Israelis and Palestinians must be reconciled but only because it is morally imperative that there be a just solution, not as part of an American global peace strategy.

In light of this, despite misgivings about the new Israeli government, so far, I agree with many of the things they are doing and the independent stance they are taking. For the Israellis, asking for more concessions from them without addressing the real nub of recognition of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, just does not wash.

Meanwhile, I wait to see how the Obama strategy pans out. Don’t hold your breath.