Source: Al-Hayat
Date: 2009-04-19
The case of the Hezbollah cell in Egypt has caught the attention of politicians, the media and the public in the Arab and Islamic worlds. It has been a leading news item and actually "caused pain" to the Arabs, whetting the appetite of their enemies for more disputes, contradictions and confrontations with Iran. Of course, it does not appear that any of the parties connected to the issue, directly or indirectly, has any intention of retreating, and thus apologizing. Many questions have been raised by this old-new crisis. What is the possible way out of this crisis, which exploded between Egypt and Hezbollah and Iran after the announcement that a Hezbollah cell had been discovered, and that its members were being investigated by Egypt's State Security? Analysts and experts, and perhaps people in the street, are asking the question, and coming up with their own answers. However, the question is the beginning of a long series of questions that are being tossed around, but the parties to the issue, whether directly or indirectly connected, have yet to agree on the various answers. The revelation of the cell's existence, the acknowledgment of this by Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and the Iranian reactions to the information coming from Cairo about the investigations reveal the extent of contradiction between the competing feelings, agendas and interests. Were relations normal to begin with among the three sides, before the cell was formed and arrested, or before the Egyptian authorities went public, or before Nasrallah admitted to its existence? The crisis began 30 years ago, when Ayatollah Khomeini announced that the Arabs had led Islamic action for centuries and that the Kurds and the Turks had either led or dominated Islam for years; thus, now was time for the Persians to lead Islam. Was the Egyptian response too much, or was it in line with the seriousness of the incident, which Cairo considered a crime against its national sovereignty?
Irrespective of any prior disputes, no self-respecting state can allow the penetration of its borders, or the concealing of secret cells and organizations that have ties with foreign powers, no matter how noble the cause is. Some people are asking: why does Cairo sometimes ignore certain acts that violate its sovereignty, if carried out by Israel, such as the killing of a Central Security soldier on the border, for example, or arrogant statements by an extremist Jewish religious figure or Israeli official about Egyptian sovereignty? These people hint or state that Cairo has taken advantage of the case to settle scores with Hezbollah, insult its leader, or influence the Iranian role in the region, especially after conciliatory signals by the US about Iran. However, others see no laxity by the Egyptian political or diplomatic authorities toward any party that harms Egypt, including Israel. The statement by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman is evidence of this, as are the sharp Egyptian reactions to the US administration during the Bush administration, when neoconservatives or leading administration figures made criticisms of the human rights or freedoms situation, or the slow pace of political reform in Egypt. This is especially the case since the Egyptian government has been aware that it will pay the price, and pay quickly, when the Americans gradually reduced their financial assistance to Egypt. Did Egyptian officials get angry about the rising popularity of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah among the Egyptian public and the sympathy of the street with the Lebanese resistance? Was it an opportunity to get back at Nasrallah? Some people are promoting these theories, while others, who believe that Nasrallah made a mistake in forming the cell, oppose these ideas, referring to the changes in Nasrallah's personality, as reflected in the famous speech in which he addressed the Egyptian army and people directly. He believed that the issue was nothing special, and would be accepted by the Egyptians, but his speech was not received well popularly. And a final question: what about the timing of the announcement of the cell and its relationship to Palestinian dialogue, or the upcoming Lebanese parliamentary elections? Some of the answers to this one ignore that Cairo did not select the timing; the statement by the state prosecutor followed statements to the media by Montasser Zayyat, the attorney for the accused Lebanese national, which revealed details of the case. This caused a huge commotion, and it became necessary for the investigating authorities to clear things up. Generally speaking, other questions will remain and the answers will be contradictory, since there are competing agendas at play. The supporters and opponents from each side will take their positions based on their interests or ideas, without taking into consideration, reason, the intellect, or… the law.
____________________________
Please feel free to comment and please do not forget to visit our sponsours.
Follow Twitter: Foreignnews
No comments:
Post a Comment