Egypt cannot escape the reconciliation option

An in-depth historical reading of all civil wars, armed and otherwise, and the conflicts that have torn societies apart for one reason or another, suggests that such occurrences usually end in national reconciliation; they then become painful events of a shared past, regardless of their severity and the magnitude of the tragedies they left behind. The difference between one arena and another is based on how much conviction the parties have and the wisdom employed by them, if any at all, in reducing the degree of suffering and conflict. What has happened in Egypt since the outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions, as well as the subsequent tragedies, has destroyed society and left painful scars; the country is at a complicated stage in which neither side can insist that their point of view prevails nor continue on the path that separated them at the height of the conflict. It is true that there is an oppressor and the oppressed, and there are a number of victims and wounds that have not yet healed, but continuing in our current situation will only be a waste of time, with more victims, more destruction and more misguidance. We have had previous experiences in Egypt and they should be a warning.

Israel’s Maariv newspaper published a report on its website recently regarding what it called the map of threats to Israel in light of the developments and rapid changes in the Middle East; the state may be impacted negatively by these developments in the coming year. The most striking fact gleaned from the newspaper’s list is that, despite all that has happened, the Egyptian army is still the only force able to face Israel on the ground; Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda are all sources of “concern” that threaten Israel’s security.

This important conclusion brings us back to Egypt today and the dangerous interactions within society, and how all of this reflects on the situation of the Egyptian army and how prepared it is for any combat mission in the future. It is worth noting that the Maariv report believes that the likelihood of a war breaking out between Israel and the neighbouring Arab states has declined sharply in recent years; this is fairly obvious. However, maintaining the strength of the Egyptian army is not related to this and should have nothing to do with politics, as an officer of the Third Field Army in Sinai said to me shortly after Anwar Sadat signed the peace treaty with Israel. I noticed that his troops in the front line were eating while standing on full alert. “Aren’t you at peace with the enemy?” I asked them. “Why are you on full alert?” They said that they had nothing to do with politics and that their combat doctrine still regarded Israel as the enemy. Unfortunately, I think that this mentality has changed a little, or perhaps a lot, since the army has been dragged into confrontations which were none of its business.

After the peace treaty with Israel, the Egyptian army abandoned its Soviet combat tactics and adopted an advanced Western fighting style thanks mainly to US aid. According to Israel, the Egyptian army is the only army in the region capable of facing its own armed forces on the battlefield. The Israel Defence Forces’ assessment is that the political storms that have swept Egypt in the past few years have had no impact on the army’s structure; security officials in Israel and Egypt are keen to explain that relations between the two armies are good and that both sides are working to serve the joint interest of fighting organisations labelled as “terrorists”.

I fear that this fabricated “war against terrorism” will divert the Egyptian army and keep it preoccupied with secondary issues which require political, not military, solutions. The situation in Sinai and parts of Upper Egypt seems to be a less intense copy of the civil war in Algeria nearly 10 years ago (Algeria’s “Black Decade”), which claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Inevitably, the parties resorted to national reconciliation, an option which was available from the very beginning and which could have saved all of those lives, never mind the social and economic costs of the violence. Egypt does not need a black decade; it needs a decade of reconciliation through the option of unity, dialogue and understanding. It must rebuild what has been destroyed by the years of military rule. Preserving Egypt and its army is not only a national interest of the state but also of the Arab world; only Israeli interests will be served by the Egyptian army drowning in the swamp of the “war on terror”.

Egypt confronted the Islamic movement during the days of the late Gamal Abdel Nasser; what took place was an almost genocidal war that was then reproduced by Ben Ali in Tunisia. Both men are now gone, but the movement still exists, rising from the ashes each time. This confirms the need for reconciliation and the turning over of a new leaf in the conflict, as well as the need to choose dialogue in order to preserve the blood of the people and face the dangers that threaten the Arabs from every side. Perhaps the experience of Morocco’s Equity and Reconciliation Commission can be utilised. It was a creative choice to preserve the domestic front and give the people time to rebuild society for the benefit of all.

Translated from Al-Araby Al-Jadid, 9 April, 2015.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.