Nasser and Sadat | Egyptian today

On every national occasion, some summon the era of Abdel Nasser and Sadat not for the sake of discussion or disagreement about the orientations of each man, but with the logic of dirting dust on one of them and glorifying the other and dispensing it from any error.

Even the October victory, which represented a moment of national consensus, was not without the attempts of some to portray Nasser as the man of defeat and Sadat the hero of victory, or others underestimated the courage of the war decision taken by Sadat and considered October a mere “war of movement” that Sadat wanted to employ in order to enter into A unilateral settlement with Israel. In fact, had it not been for the war of attrition that Nasser waged after the defeat of 67 (he bears the first responsibility), the October victory would not have been, and the Egyptian army would not have crossed the Suez Canal, and that if Sadat’s decision to cross the canal and his success in laying out his plan was an integrated strategic deception, the October victory would not have been.

The truth is that the importance of Abdel Nasser in the contemporary history of Egypt is essential because he liberated the country from occupation, led national liberation throughout the Third World, and established the republican system on the ruins of the monarchy, and he is the most popular leader in modern Arab history, and that the legitimacy of our political system still derives from three principles established by Nasser, which is the national state. The republican system and the civil constitution, regardless of the faults of its political system, will remain a changing matter that differs from the essence of its project and its principles in social justice and national liberation.

As for Sadat, he could be considered the founder of the new “Arab right-wing school”, and the first to have the courage to express his convictions openly, in contrast to those who negotiated with Israel in secret and raised slogans of resistance and opposition in public.

Certainly, Sadat was a patriot and that his betrayal by some was a major crime, because in the end he undertook an initiative and signed a peace agreement with Israel under which he returned an occupied land to the bosom of the homeland, meaning that he unilaterally worked hard to regain occupied land and did not neglect it until he was accused of treason.

It is true that many (including us) disagreed on the results of this unilateral peace on Egypt, and the state’s failure in recent years to make more efforts to break the restrictions imposed by Camp David on Egypt’s Arab role, and not to benefit from the peace settlement in building a model of civil democratic moderation that inspires the Arab region. And these are all matters that have nothing to do with patriotism and betrayal, but rather related to political orientation and school.

The vulgar talk that some or a few repeat about the leader Abdel Nasser and President Sadat must remain among the marginal groups, and the supporters of the two presidents must recognize their value in our contemporary history, even if their roles differ, because Abdel Nasser is the founding leader of our republican system and the hero to liberate Egypt and the region from colonialism, and Sadat is the owner A national political vision, regardless of agreement or disagreement with it.

[email protected]