Radical Changes: A Lesson From Egypt

On both sides of the Israel/Palestine conflict there are those factions which see peace as an undesirable outcome, wishing to either destroy or conquer the other, and will go to great lengths to ensure that the conflict remains active and escalating.  In my brief time living in Jerusalem it seemed obvious that the majority wish to live their lives outside of the conflict – feeling frustrated or jaded at the possibilities for a lasting peace.

So for me, an important question is: “What is the possibility of de-radicalizing the radicals?” Has it ever been done?  Can those people who are currently driven by hatred and violence possibly be expected to contribute something positive and peaceful to the future of the region?

I was recently listening to a podcast (This American Life) covering a political meeting taking place in Egypt.  This meeting was special because it was comprised of people of varying backgrounds discussing the formation of new political parties and the democratic future of Egypt.  What caught my attention was that in attendance were several members of Gamaa al-Islamiya, literally translated as “The Islamic Group.”  Created in the 1970s, Gamaa al-Islamiya openly advocated violent terrorist actions in order to replace the Egyptian government with an Islamic state. Responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Egyptian policemen, soldiers, and civilians, Gamaa al-Islamiya is perhaps most infamous for a campaign of violence in the 90s in which the Islamic Group targeted prominent writers and intellectuals, government employees and tourists.  During 1993 alone, the terrorists had killed or wounded 1,106 people.  “One survey found that in 1993, more cops [120] than terrorists [111] were killed … Several senior police officials and their bodyguards were shot dead in daylight ambushes.  Score of low-ranking policemen were picked off as they left home for work in the morning.^“ As Lawrence Wright, a reporter for the New Yorker, puts it, “Blood on the ground became the measure of the Islamic Group’s success, and it was all the more thrilling because the murder was done in the name of God.^“

Then, in 1997, the imprisoned leaders of Gamaa al-Islamiya did something extraordinary; they released a series of writings for the public known collectively as “the revisions,” in which they rejected violent jihad and formally apologized for their past transgressions – willing their organization to become legitimate and peaceful.  “We wanted to relay our experience to young people to protect them from falling into the same mistakes we did,” said Karam Zuhdy, a founder of the Gamaa al-Islamiya.

Now, after 24 years in prison Nageh Ibrahim, a leader of the once-violent Islamic Group, sits peacefully among 29 other people in a meeting – many of them writers, artists, and intellectuals working to secure secular Egypt.  After one of the writers asks a question about what kind of art would be allowed in a Gamaa al-Islamiya government an argument breaks out, but it is a civil argument in which each side has the opportunity to state and defend their opinion. In the end Nageh Ibrahim says something not usually associated with the leader of a radical movement; “Look, we may differ with you about art but Gamaa al-Islamiya will not burn art, will not destroy, will not ban.  I could disagree with you about literature, art, or politics but that does not mean I would be violent against you or attack you.  No, we fight thought with thought.”

This is truly a remarkable (dare I say radical) change in ideological perspective but if we are to learn anything from it, to apply it to other radical terrorist organizations such as those operating in the conflict between Palestine and Israel, then we must examine how such a change took place.   The leaders of the Gamaa al-Islamiya say their trans-formative experience from violence into peace began much earlier than their capture by Egyptian officials but that they could not complete it because they were surrounded by the opposing blood-thirsty voices of the majority of their peers.  It was only after they had been sent to prison, packed into tiny cells with up to 30 other people largely without any outside information about their cause’s advancement that they began to have deep debates about the nature and effectiveness of violence.  Their minds were changed further when Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Egypt’s Grand Mufti and a symbolic advocate for moderate and progressive Islam, began paying them visits in the late 90s.  He recalls; “We had debates and dialogues with the prisoners, which continued for more than three years.  Such debates became the nucleus for the revisionist thinking.”

This is an important case study if we are to maintain hope that radicals can be transformed to moderate non-violent proponents of the change they seek. The lessons of this story are many and, of course, it is not a simple task.  As Sheikh Ali Gomaa explains; “Our experience with such people is that it is very difficult to move them two or three degrees from where they are.”  However, Gamaa al-Islamiya stands as a powerful example of the possibility for meaningful changes in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

“Before, we thought you could remove the infidel ruler only through force,” said Nageh Ibrahim after the recent removal of President Mubarak, “Today, we see we can do it through peaceful protest and the ballot box.^“