Gamal Nkrumah and Mohamed El-Sayed look for reactions to shocking revelations of an Israeli war crime History can be a hard taskmaster for the pundit, and no more so than in the Egyptian press this week. Pick any of the country's papers this week -- prestigious or otherwise -- and it would be full of tirades about the 1967 massacre in cold blood of Egyptian prisoners of war by a unit headed by current Israeli Minister of National Infrastructure Benyamin Ben- Eliezer, which is perceived as nothing less than a national humiliation. The audacity of those who uphold the blue and white flag of Israel with the Star of David spangled across it, is the cause of much of the national consternation. In fact, commentators had worked themselves up into a frenzy and the headlines were so critical they metamorphosed into an anti-Israeli crescendo. Ironically, much of the venom was directed against the Egyptian government, most pundits believing the government had shot its bolt. Abdullah El-Sennawi wrote in the Arab Nasserist Party weekly mouthpiece Al-Arabi about the Israeli documentary film that showed Ben-Eliezer ordering the killing of 250 Egyptian soldiers after the 1967 War. "There are influential Israeli figures who see the Egyptian leadership as weak and think that the Egyptian society... could be easily humiliated and its morale easily killed by broadcasting such documentaries... one of the main reasons behind the screening of this documentary on Israeli TV was lifting the morale of Israelis which seriously declined in the aftermath of the Lebanon war and the humiliating defeat the Israeli Defence Force was dealt." Many Egyptian political commentators were grim as far as the Egyptian government's stance was concerned. Indeed, it was crystal clear that as decisive and impetuous as Israeli policy-makers are concerned, Egyptian officials are as indecisive and circumspect. "There is no glimmer of hope that the current [Egyptian] regime will challenge Israeli arrogance or take revenge for the martyred soldiers," El-Sennawi lamented. The headline of the front page of the weekly independent Al-Dustour was as bombastic. "Why didn't Mubarak speak out about the Israeli massacre of Egyptian POWs?" it bellowed. "The president will not face leaders from Tel Aviv, and he will not take any action against the murderers of the Egyptian POWs, and he will not dismiss the Israeli ambassador [in Cairo] and he will not give up taking [Ehud] Olmert between his arms." The paper was critical about how President Mubarak sympathised with the plight of a single Israeli soldier while ignoring the fate of his own Egyptian troops. "Mubarak was following the tiny details of the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Shalit and has done his utmost to return him to his family safe and sound. However, he didn't give a statement about his soldiers who were massacred. He was concerned about the life of one single kidnapped Israeli soldier, and did not get angry over of the killing of 250 Egyptian soldiers." Though united over the POW issue, columnists could not make up their minds about the controversy surrounding constitutional amendments in Egypt today. Outspoken Diaa Rashwan, of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, warned in the widely respected daily independent Al-Masry Al-Youm that what he called a "constitutional revolution" would have dire consequences. "The first pillar of the constitutional revolution is separating Egyptian society -- Muslims and Christians -- from its identity, history, culture and Arab-Islamic heritage by banning the formation of any party with any religious reference by virtue of amended Article 5... we cannot ask all Egyptians to drop their historical identity which is based mainly on religion since the Pharaonic era." Rashwan went on to extol the virtues of a vibrant democracy and stressed that Egypt is not a democracy yet. Old fears refuse to fade away, he contended. "The second pillar of the constitutional revolution, represented in the amendment of articles 62 and 76, will exclude the vast majority of Egyptians from running for parliamentarian and presidential elections. The first article will dedicate the majority of seats of the People's Assembly and the Shura Council to party members, leaving a precious few number of seats for independents. This means that 95 per cent of Egyptians will be excluded from running for elections since only five per cent of them are members of political parties ... this will lead [at the end] to blocking the way of those who want to run for the presidency." Egypt, Rashwan concluded, has a long way to go before it gets going on the democratic roller-coaster. "The amendment of Article 88 [which will cancel full supervision of judges over the electoral process] will put paid to any kind of fair or free elections... this will take the country ages backwards because the ruling party and the government's administrative and security bodies will rig elections," he elaborated further. "The amendment of Article 179, designed to combat terrorism, will restrict all public and private freedoms... the current emergency law, with all its negative effects, will be a much-sought dream for Egyptians who will experience the ramifications of the new procedures of the new [anti-terrorism law] stated in the amended article." Some commentators, however, begged to differ. "It's strange to see people say that the constitutional amendments were tailored by some unknown people," wrote Abdullah Kamal, in the weekly pro- government Rose Al-Youssef. "If the [amended] constitution was against Egypt's identity, people would have protested against it. But the fact is that the Muslim Brotherhood is against Egypt's identity," Kamal claimed. "The fifth article [which prohibits the formation of religious-based parties] has closed the gates of hell." He was alluding to the possibility of permitting the Muslim Brotherhood to play an even greater role in national politics. "The constitution is a future [social] contract. And it's normal that there are disagreements about it [between different political forces]." The sensationalist magazine quoted Mohamed Kamal, senior member of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) as saying: "The amendments do not aim at reducing the role of religion. There is no intention to amend the second article of the constitution [that says that Islamic Sharia is the main source of legislation]." He ended on a sombre note. "I reject the idea of giving a certain quota for Copts [in parliament], for this will instigate sectarianism and religious conflicts." That is bound to set the cat among the pigeons.
