Egypt is "Sick"... and Palestine Misses Nasser!

| Ali Fedda |

It pains any writer who believes in the righteousness of the Palestinian cause and the Arab cause in general to talk about Egypt in these times, or more specifically, "Camp David" Egypt. Especially since we are living in a period where history is being rewritten.

The Al-Aqsa flood has imposed this, as its impact on the course of history cannot be overlooked, and any attempts to jump over it or distort it will fail. This significant event necessitates a re-examination of history and a re-reading of it with an insightful methodology, at least to describe its current ramifications. Particularly since Israeli tanks are displaying themselves at the Rafah crossing, just meters away from the Egyptian border, in an attempt to complete the genocide if they are not restrained!

My Experience with the Egyptian Intellectuals

Honestly, and without generalizing, my experience with Egyptian intellectuals, especially those interested in politics, has not been good. Their approaches and definitive judgments on an era that was an idea for Egypt's identity, role, and character seem misplaced to me.

Their discussion of the era of President Gamal Abdel Nasser is often seen through a calculative lens, with their approaches tied to profit and loss. As if Nasser was the only one who lost battles. Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi, before the conquest of Jerusalem, faced defeats both before and after the Battle of Hattin, and his sons later lost Jerusalem again.

Is the measure of a leader determined by the extent of his wins and losses in the battles imposed on him and the battles and support he must undertake?

Nasser established an Egyptian identity with a presence and an Arab and African idea. During his era, Egypt was the axis and the password; the idea was continuity, with successors to follow.

For instance, before the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, the Oghuz-Turkish tribes and their leaders exchanged messages with the password "The Red Apple," referring to "Constantinople," now Istanbul. They exchanged it generation after generation until the Ottoman Empire was established, and the seventh Sultan, Muhammad II, known as "the Conqueror," achieved its conquest.

The lesson is in continuity. Nasser, as a charismatic figure, specifically a Sunni one (sorry for the description but it is true), was a mover of the Arab peoples, and this was not allowed by the West at all. But I agree on discussing his situation.

In my discussions with some Egyptians, I found them condemning him outright, as if those who came after him, up to today, have given Egypt the same significance as in Nasser's time on all levels—economically, sovereignly, socially, and even intellectually.

What explains, for example, the Egyptian intellectual's admiration for Roger Garaudy more than for Miles Copeland? Garaudy was an Orientalist who converted to Islam and leaned towards radical Islam. Copeland was one of the founders of the CIA and worked at the U.S. Department of Planning, authoring a book titled "The Game of Nations." His fault was that he spoke about Nasser, so this book, in the eyes of some Egyptian intellectuals, became academically invalid and unrecognized by Western academics, even though Copeland said, "My complaint was that the CIA did not overthrow enough anti-American governments or assassinate enough anti-American leaders." What does the Western opinion of Copeland matter to me? Is there a need to admire every writer, or is my search for information the goal? Here, one imagines that Sadat, by expelling the Soviet experts, also expelled the idea of Egypt's role, and the readings and conclusions of Arab intellectuals in general and Egyptians, in particular, became orientalist in nature. Except for a few who still struggle and dig with a needle in the wall of Camp David.

Camp David

Just by saying "Egypt first," you isolate "the mother of the world" from the world. This agreement is not just a surrender to the West but a system that ruled Egypt without the minimum requirements of active states. The Camp David system will not bring anyone better than Sameh Shoukry, who said, "Egypt does not seek to be a leading state." They criticize Nasser for losing Sinai, while they applaud and praise presidents who ruled a country that regained Sinai but lost Egypt. It is truly incomprehensible that influential believers in essential causes like the Palestinian cause are few! Their defensive efforts are individual. We are talking about one hundred million Egyptians and a vast army, invaded by orientalism, stripped of their will, and lost the spirit of initiative. One of them once told me, "Yes, Abdel Wahab El-Messiri was the best at explaining the Palestinian cause, especially his encyclopedia 'Jews, Judaism, and Zionism,'" then added, "but he was close to Nasser's thought!" What a curse... Just being close to Nasser's idea makes you stigmatized!

It is not my right to judge them; this is a matter for history, as it is the judge as long as there are pens that write. And for the record, a thinker like Antoun Saadeh should be recognized, as he early foresaw, explaining the Arab condition by dividing it into regions: the Maghreb region, the Arabian Peninsula and the Gulf, and the Syrian region, adding that all these regions have different interests. Indeed, if Yemen had not entered the confrontation line in the Al-Aqsa flood, this conflict could have been uniquely Syrian.

I will stop here, even though Egypt is currently seeking to join South Africa's lawsuit against the Israeli occupation. South Africa, which is north just meters away from Palestine. I have plenty of arguments and am ready to debate with the best of them, with the humility of a lover of Egypt, which I see as sick.

Palestine misses Gamal Abdel Nasser, and when Palestine misses someone, they are on the right side of history.