Egypt's role
By
Naguib mahfouz
I am often surprised by current debates about Egypt's role in the Arab region. It is said, for example, that Egypt will have no role unless it abides by certain conditions. Such words elicit sarcasm at best. The political roles of nations are not like roles in the movies; they are not distributed to the actors as the director wills. The role of nations in history is rather determined by these nations' importance and their status within the region in question. It is not something that somebody simply decides.
Let us talk about Egypt specifically. Is it conceivable that Egypt, which has played a major role in Arab affairs through the ages, sometimes paying with the blood of its children, can suddenly be told: If you do not do such and such a thing, you will not be allowed a role in the region!
Why should Sharon impose the conditions required for Egypt to play a role when Egypt has suffered the consequences of this role since 1948? How can he demand that Egypt send its ambassador to Tel Aviv in order for it to play a regional role? How could its Arab role hang on its releasing an Israeli spy who has been tried and sentenced? Those who believe it might betray an utter ignorance of Egypt's history and position among the Arabs.
Let us ask what will be Egypt's reward for performing an Arab role? Such a role implies more giving than receiving; relies more on sacrifice than on profit. It is very strange, therefore, that it should be presented to Egypt as a tempting reward. No viable resolution could be deemed serious unless Egypt is party to it. Any other view is a joke
* Based on an interview by Mohamed Salmawy.
