Hero or Foe?

I was in a philosophy class back in 2003 when my professor warned me/gave me a public advice: “you better stop right now as you already got yourself into too much trouble”. He was referring to some comments I made – undiplomatic and not-so-eloquently-phrased – about the Great Arab Revolt in 1916. Probably influenced by a book I read about the Revolt and how some Arab forces joined hands with the British Empire to topple the Ottoman rule, I criticised the revolutionary forces, the Hijaz leadership and their putsch. Back in my idealistic days, I believed that loyalty must trump interest and that problems should be solved from within, not without. Now the professor feared for himself perhaps and decided to cut my ramblings short, considering that those leaderships I was criticizing (strictly in the 1916 context) were the same leadership ruling the country today (noting that later on I worked in fact in public institutions loyal to this leadership). In any case, I am sure my professor meant well and wanted to avoid an unnecessary confrontation with class mates who would take much offense to my candidacy.  Questioning the validity of past decisions, and stripping policies from “pressures and justifications and good intentions and nativity and oppression” and all other attributes linked to poor judgments is a necessary activity. As citizens and governments we should not shy away from re-examining past actions and evaluating their soundness. The activity should not always be one that leads to criticism….perhaps they in fact confirm the precision of the decision reached at the time. A neutral, scientific, cool-headed and factual attitude in addressing past events is very important… ….agreeing to de-glorify what we so much enjoyed glorifying is not a shameful act. It restores dignity to the objective and open mind.

Why this memory? Well, I was reading a controversial book that day with the title “Spies Against Armageddon”, a pro-Israel book that - in my modest opinion - lacks a tone of humility and objectivity. In one of the chapters, the authors refer to the case of a double agent who worked for the Israeli Mosssad (intelligence) whilst feeding Egypt false intelligence information at the same time. This double agent was first recruited by Egypt to spy on Israel but then Israel recruited him to serve as a double agent. What both stories agree on is that the spy, Rafat Al Jamal, was born in Egypt, recruited by the Egyptian intelligence, resided in Europe for a while and then immigrated to Israel under a false identity where he established himself as an important businessman. So far so good. Now the story changes; according to the Egyptian version – the one I grew up with and the one I so much enjoying watching on TV as it was converted to a famous series -  Rafat was a shrewd agent who spied with much talent and sent Egypt periodic reports. He even helped out in the Six Days War in 1967 by sending information to Egypt about the day Israel would attack. He also played a role in the 1973 war and was an exemplary citizen of nationalism, heroism and servitude to the Arab nation and cause. How impressed was I with that national hero.

Now, the book. According to the Israeli version, Rafat was caught spying on Israel by the Mossad and was given a choice. He either rots in jail for the rest of his life, or he accepts the offer to work as a double agent. He took the latter option and was recruited by the Mossad. Egypt was under the false impression that he was still a loyal agent, and he, to maintain the façade and avoid drawing suspicion, continued sending information to Egypt (albeit useless and marginal). According the book, he did in fact help out in the 1967 war and did inform Egypt about the date of the attack. But instead of telling them that Israel had planned to strike the air force, he told them that Israel will launch ground operations, hence the decision of Egyptian generals to leave fighter planes in the open. Of course, this deviation of attention immensely helped Israel in the war, giving it an upper hand after destroying the entire Egyptian air force in an eye-blink. Thank you Rafat.

I am not suggesting that the Israeli version is true. But what would have been nice was allowing the audience to decide…give them the opportunity to decide…to learn the facts…to hear both sides of the story. Shielding the Arab sentiment from disappointment has been proven to be extremely destructive. Whether it is about the 1967 war, the Arab Revolt or any other key event in the Arab history, narration must be neutral, responsible and modest. I would like to believe that Rafat served his country and the Arab world, and that Israeli narrations stem from spite and embarrassment. But what I desire and what actually happened are totally different issues. I love the truth, good or bad, and I would like to have the facts to reach a sound decision. In all cases, whether the Egyptian version were right or wrong, I believe that national glory and pride do not reside in one person nor in one plot, but in the nation’s ability to remain proud despite mistakes, deceptions and self-criticism.