Mohamed El-Sayed Said* explores the implications of Egypt and Israel's immediate reactions to the Taba bombing The explosions in Taba this week were almost immediately followed by a strange exchange between Egyptian and Israeli authorities. The Israelis quickly pointed a finger at Al-Qaeda while Egyptian officials insisted the accusations were premature and that there was as yet no evidence of such a link. One might have predicted the opposite -- that Egypt would have accused Al- Qaeda, and Israel have poured cold water on the accusation. It would appear, after all, to be in the best interests of Egypt to rule out either Palestinians or Egyptians as the perpetrators of the attack. Should Palestinians have been behind the atrocity then great damage would be done to Palestinian-Egyptian relations, and there would be a negative impact on Egyptian popular support for the Intifada. It would be no less embarrassing should Egyptians prove responsible: this would imply not only a massive security failure but the possible resumption of terrorist activity within Egypt after almost seven years of peace. But if pinning responsibility on Al-Qaeda provides relief from scenarios that would otherwise appear intolerable to Egypt, the opposite is also true: from an Israeli perspective a great deal of mileage could be made from suggesting the bombings were the result of actions by Palestinians or Egyptian fanatics. Accusing Palestinians would foment a crisis in Egyptian- Palestinian relations, and impact negatively on the image of Palestinians both internationally and regionally. It would also reinforce arguments for security cooperation between Egypt and Israel against (Palestinian) terrorism, while the suggestion that an Egyptian group was responsible would serve Israel by underlining the groundswell of hatred, and its concomitant extremism, that characterises regional relations. How then can we explain the paradoxical initial responses to the attack? On one level, it might be argued, both Egypt and Israel are actually seeking to uncover the truth behind the attacks regardless of any narrow political and propaganda gains that might be made. Israel may have had information suggesting a terrorist operation a month before it took place, and it is perfectly likely that this information was clear on the perpetrators while being hopelessly vague over the place and timing of the operation. Egypt, on the other hand, lacking any clear evidence, and recognising the importance of uncovering the truth, would have understandably cautioned against any hasty conclusions. But during a period of rising tension and opposed visions and interests it is unfortunate that a simple desire to uncover the truth provides an unlikely explanation of the reactions to the attack. A more realistic explanation would be that while Sharon's government wants the attacks to be seen as part of a global, religious and unending war, Egypt is striving to limit such a reading. The explosions in Taba seem to resemble those in Bali. In addition to bearing the operation hallmarks of Al-Qaeda, they also replicate the opposition between two styles of life -- the austere self-sacrifice of the perpetrators and the supposedly lavish, hedonistic and decadent life of Israelis and Westerners. George Bush reads into this opposition -- between the mountain cave and the seaside resort -- a simple message of envy. He ignores the fact that the majority of Al-Qaeda operatives have renounced comfortable lives and that they launch attacks not just against those whom they think are attacking Islam, but against a hedonistic concept of living that is made possible only by ignoring, and often causing, the suffering of the others. And when we speak of suffering it is Gaza, and particularly the Rafah refugee camp, that we must keep in the forefront of our minds. The Taba attack coincided with the almost complete destruction of the Rafah refugee camp by the Israeli army. Nor is this the first time that the army of Sharon and Mofaz has arrived in the camp to kill and destroy. Sharon's government feels confident that it can do so with impunity, having liquidated the cadres of the major Palestinian organisations. The Taba explosions can, then, be clearly related to the destruction of Rafah and other refugee camps and cities in the occupied territories: in a profound sense it is the terror unleashed in Rafah, and not Bali, that stands in an opposite -- and ironic -- relation to the terror that took place in Taba. And viewed through this prism, would it come as a surprise to anyone if the perpetrators of the Taba attack turned out to be Palestinian, or perhaps, even, Egyptian? Certainly, it is easier to circumvent Egyptian security in the Sinai peninsula from the borders with Gaza and Israel than from mainland Egypt. Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that the increasing difficulties encountered by Palestinians willing to conduct suicide operations inside Israel or in Jewish settlements inside the occupied territories might have forced discussion on the possibility of using Sinai as a target. Such discussions would have gained impetus following Israel's targeting of a leading Hamas figure in Syria: it does not take a great leap of the imagination to suppose that such Israeli assassinations might spur Palestinians to consider expanding the military struggle beyond mandate Palestine. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have denied responsibility for the Taba attacks and there is no reason not to believe the denials. But it remains possible that a splinter group, originally belonging to either organisation, is behind the attacks. Let me propose a scenario: Taba, or similar operations in Sinai, or outside Palestine, have been discussed inside Palestinian organisations in response to the systematic and cold blooded killing of civilians in Rafah and elsewhere. Such operations are rejected by the major resistance organisations. Is it, then, far-fetched to suggest that those who initiated the idea broke away in dissent, determined to go ahead with this, and possibly similar, operations. They may have then shifted loyalty to Al- Qaeda and received support from individuals or groups connected to Al-Qaeda in Egypt. A similar scenario could be envisaged in the case of the operation being launched by Egyptian extremists. While it is unlikely that the main Egyptian groups should have broken their cease-fire, splinter organisations may have shifted allegiance to Al-Qaeda, and received help in staging the attack. There is a problem, of course, in that Al-Qaeda has increasingly become a token for an ideology, a mentality and a strategy rather than a specific organisation. Many smaller organisations or groups may initiate contacts on their own, or come to declare adherence to Al-Qaeda strategy without ever connecting with leading figures in an increasingly phantom organisation. But in the case of the Taba attack I believe an affiliation exists that has allowed the perpetrators to draw on resources, expertise, and possibly facilities. Wherever blame comes finally to rest the Taba attack sounds a number of alarms, not least at the relative ease with which cars can be equipped with explosives and turned into lethal weapons. And with such weapons any number of small groups, acting in isolation from larger trends or political blocks, can inflict enormous damage on the stability of nations such as Egypt. Fragmentation, which correlates or results from despair, increasingly poses a greater danger than that emanating from better structured political formations. The ability to circumvent Egyptian security in Sinai -- Egypt is widely regarded as possessing one of the world's strictest security regimes -- will also be causing a great deal of concern. Israel's separation wall could easily impact on the security of Egypt if it persuades disillusioned and angry Palestinians that launching attacks on Israel through Egypt is the easier option. It is a situation that would be compounded should Palestinian splinter groups ally themselves with Al-Qaeda and shift their wrath from Israel proper to the US and whoever are perceived as Washington's allies. In short, Egypt cannot hope for security and stability as long as the Palestinian people are brutally repressed and deprived of their fundamental political and civil rights. Nor will the world enjoy stability as long as the Israeli occupation continues to draw on American support and resources. * The writer is deputy director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies.
