The mufti's recent visit to Jerusalem was a way of showing solidarity with the people of a city suffering under decades of occupation, says Mohammed Moustafa Orfy* The German philosopher Nietzsche once wrote that there are no such things as facts. There are only various interpretations of the status quo. It could be argued that the recent visit of the mufti of Egypt to Jerusalem, where the Al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the most important Islamic holy sites, as well as other Islamic and Christian shrines, is under Israeli occupation, could be seen from different, perhaps contradictory, perspectives. On the one hand, some might consider the visit to be evidence of the mufti's neglecting or abandoning the long- standing principle that rejects any dealings with Israel that might constitute any form of "normalisation". Israel still occupies Arab territories in Palestine and Syria, and there is its record of killings and torture and its imposition of a blockade on the Palestinian people. In the light of these things, the normalisation of relations is scarcely possible. On the other hand, others might interpret the mufti's unprecedented move, which has caused a great deal of controversy in Egypt, to be a way of confirming the rights of Muslims and Christians in the holy city as well as of showing solidarity and compassion to the people of the city who have shown their steadfastness over four-and-a-half decades of brutal occupation. The people of Jerusalem themselves welcomed the long- awaited visit after having suffered for so long from psychological estrangement and geographical isolation, saying that "visiting the prisoner doesn't mean legitimising the authority of the warden". Anyone who had a brother or a son who had become a prisoner of war under the Zionist occupation would likely have turned to the Red Cross or other organisation for help in organising a visit to the prisoner. Who would have been able to reject such a humane offer, even if the visit would have had to be organised in cooperation with the occupying authorities? Who would have been able to do so knowing that even a short visit would help alleviate the prisoner's suffering? We should show some understanding of the mufti's visit, bearing in mind that he is a human being and as such is able to make mistakes in his timing or in calculating the likely repercussions of his actions. The visit could have been better organised, of course. For example, it should have included the Gaza Strip in order to draw the attention of the international community to the daily suffering of the people there. Perhaps it could also have been preceded by a news conference in order to confirm long-established positions -- in other words that the visit was not part of any form of normalisation. Perhaps the visit could have been postponed to a later, calmer period. Apart from such matters of rights and wrongs, the criticisms that have been made of the mufti as a result of the visit may mean that Egypt is passing through a very difficult period. The present revolutionary fervour in society has perhaps led some people to think of themselves as angels who are unable to make mistakes. Unfortunately, some elements in society also seem no longer to know the value of the country's intellectual, scientific and religious symbols, and they have even taken to criticising them as if an instinct of self-destruction had taken over their hearts and minds. Finally, even if the 25 January Revolution toppled the ruling pharaoh, this dramatic change should not be accompanied by a change in one of the most important things in Egypt's heritage, which is respect for our elders, especially in the event of disagreements. Let us remember that what helped South Africa to cross the transitional period from the apartheid system to a stable democracy was the fact that people in the country preserved their respect for their leaders and symbols, who successfully managed to save South Africa from bloodshed or chaos or from wasting its energy in useless battles or fruitless discussions. * The writer is an academic.
