Between seven and ten thousand people
decided to object to the clips of what is said to be a film (of which there is
nothing to prove its existence)—repugnant clips, in their absurdity and
ridiculousness—and to do so by attacking Western embassies. The armed among
them stormed the American consulate in Benghazi and killed who they killed,
just as dozens stormed the buildings of American diplomatic missions in Yemen,
Tunisia, and Sudan, and stole “ in defense of the dignity of the Messenger of
Allah” a number of computers, TV screens, printers, telephones, and
stationary—anything considered valuable—then set fire to what could not be
carried.
Likewise, those who “triumphed” for the
Prophet altogether resembled in their barbarity those idiotic actors running
furiously in the snippets of the alleged film, as if they were their colleagues
in the moronic “movie”—though this time with real blood, thick smoke, and with the
tangible spoils of conquest.
It’s possible for one to be content with
this summary of what happened this past week, with much repetition of the same images
from the protests against the Danish caricatures in late 2005. It’s also
possible to say that the venting of suppressed frustrations, by those marginal
groups that used to be manipulated by security apparatuses, is always searching
for a pretext, sometimes provided by a display of racism in Western countries.
It’s also possible to consider what occurred to be an instinctual expression of
anger from unemployed young men, some of whom had likely failed to obtain visas
from the same embassies they ransacked.
However, that does not seem to be enough
this time. There is something political, beyond all of this, something that
resembles the attempts to launch “a counter-revolution”: A revolution against
the revolutions of the Arab Spring and what they represent politically, in
terms of restoring the relationship between time and place, via the rotation of
power electorally and the right to peaceful demonstrations and voicing of
objections in public spaces on the one hand, and what is expressed culturally
both within the Arab world (and beyond) of the yearning of millions of citizens
for a return to politics, in terms of its implications for their daily lives,
for their rights, that are universal, on the other hand.
In this sense, what the counter-revolution
wants to assert is a rupture between Arabs/Muslims and all other peoples of the
world, using scenes of violence to confirm difference. To say the killings and
beatings are “for the dignity of the Prophet” captures only one of its aspects.
Things have gone in a way most pleasing to racists and supporters of
authoritarianism (Western and Eastern alike), who have not delayed to seize the
opportunity and promote their message: “Since repression was lifted in Arab
countries, the fundamentalists have spread instability and incited their
violence.”
But luckily, the “counter-revolution” has remained
meager, and remains so far, despite the density of its images and the intensity
of its heinousness. Fortunately as well, this time, the voices of many
individuals and groups (the 30.000 demonstrators in Benghazi yesterday are only
one proof) have been increasingly raised against the violence, and so it seems
that the counter-revolutions and their followers will not be allowed much more
“spoils”…
Ziad Majed
Translated by Jeff Reger
