Since his release, Nour has made significant efforts to strengthen his position within the Egyptian political arena, as well as internationally. In early April 2009, he launched the Cairo Declaration, a document issued in cooperation with other Egyptian opposition leaders, which promoted democracy and political reforms in Egypt.[vi] Nour's awareness campaign included visits to most Egyptian governorates, where he met with youth, non-governmental organizations and ordinary Egyptians. Everywhere he went, he tried to convince audiences to sign the Cairo Declaration and support the Tomorrow Party.[vii]

Likewise, Nour intensified his activity within the Egyptian opposition movement, voicing opposition to Gamal Mubarak’s inheritance of Egypt's presidency from his father. Recently, Nour has become the driving force behind the establishment of a new oppositional group, The National Front against the Succession.[viii]

On April 14, 2009, Nour made an international appearance when he spoke in front of the European Parliament in Brussels, calling upon its members to cease "supporting the tyranny" in Egypt.[ix] During his stay in Europe, he met with Edward McMillan-Scott, a British member of the European Parliament and one of its vice-presidents, as well as a number of other Members of Parliament from Belgium and Italy.[x] On May 7, 2009, Nour delivered a speech to the American Congress via video conference, in which he asked the United States for "help supporting the democratization process and social development in the Middle East." He argued that his party's successful performance in the 2005 elections "provided practical and shocking evidence that a civilian liberal oppositional party may succeed at becoming a third player between an oppressive state and [Islamic] fundamentalism […] without compromising the principle and prioritization of stability."[xi]

While Israel is mentioned in Ayman Nour's speeches, articles and interviews, it is worth noting that domestic issues, rather than foreign affairs, are at the focus of his interests. And while the Tomorrow Party's platform does not include a clear statement concerning the future of the Egyptian peace treaty with Israel, the Jewish state is referred to in the party's political platform and official statements in various contexts. These sources are important indicators of Nour's attitude regarding Israel. This article examines this attitude through three criteria: First, his views on the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and normalizing relations with Israel; Second, the discrepancy between his respective approaches to the United States and Israel; Third, his vision for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the future of Israel-Egypt peace relations.

Egyptian Liberals’ Approach to Israel
The term "Egyptian liberal" requires some explanation. The political platform of the Tomorrow Party defines "liberal democracy" as a "peaceful format for managing disagreements and conflicts in accordance with principles which are accepted by all parties [involved]."[xii] Recently, during a visit to the Suez Governorate, Nour elaborated that "liberalism means the acceptance of the other, religious tolerance and citizenship rights."[xiii] For the purpose of this article, however, the term "liberal" will be used more broadly, including Egyptian politicians and intellectuals who support the implementation of a pluralistic democracy in Egypt, despite their liberal discourse often being infused with Islamic dictates or hate speech, especially against Israel and the United States.  

Egyptian liberals' positions towards Israel vary. Some see peace with Israel as essential for the transformation of Egypt from a reality of backwardness and oppression towards a future of progressiveness and freedom. These liberals support a warm peace, namely, normalization with Israel, as part of a general platform of political, economical and cultural liberalism in their country.[xiv] This group includes Amin Al-Mahdi, ‘Ali Salem, Sa‘d Al-Din Ibrahim and Tariq Heggy. The latter has published an article encouraging the Egyptian media to promote what he called "the culture of peace" with Israel. "A war culture," he argued, "[…] will divert our energies from what should be our main target at this juncture: building up a strong society capable of facing external challenges effectively by using the same tools as those used by advanced, successful societies, not those of a Bedouin mentality used by people addicted to failure."[xv]

On the other hand, there are many Egyptian liberals who do not consider peace with Israel an integral part of their agenda, and strongly object to any form of normalization with Israel. Objection to normalization usually belongs to one of two categories – conditional or categorical: some insist that normal relations with Israel must be avoided so long as Israel occupies Arab territory, while others deeply believe that Israel is imperialist by its very nature, and warn against the dangers of an Israeli cultural invasion and its expansionist plots. Many liberals who belong to the latter group have deep Islamic roots, as is the case with Gamal al-Bana and Hasan Hanafi,[xvi] or nationalist tendencies, as in the case of ‘Abd al-Halim Qindil and George Ishaq.[xvii] Qindil is one of the founders of the Enough Movement (Harakat Kifayah), also known as the Egyptian Movement for Change, a group that promotes democracy and reforms. Qindil has suggested conducting a referendum on the "freezing or cancellation of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" as a necessary step in order to liberate Egypt from "the dictations of American-Israeli colonialism."[xviii]

Nour and the Peace Treaty with Israel

Nour's position towards Israel is evinced first by the phrases he employs to describe it, and second, by the essence of his discourse. The Tomorrow Party's political platform, which was written in 2002, refers to Israel as "the Zionist enemy."[xix] Moreover, former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is described as implementing a "Nazi policy which was manifested in [the] oppression, killing and murder" of Palestinians.[xx] Similarly, in response to the Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead), the party accused Israel of committing a "racist immoral Zionist crime." Nour himself blamed Israel for committing an "inhumane massacre."[xxi]

Nour's tone can undoubtedly be described as hostile, which is also reflected in Nour's opinion of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty and the normalization of relations with Israel. The foreign policy section in the Tomorrow Party's political platform begins by emphasizing the "principle of resolving disputes between countries in peaceful ways." However, the rest of the platform seems to indicate that this principle does not apply to Israel. The platform calls upon Arab countries to unite "against the Zionist enemy" and criticizes the "official Arab stance" that relies on "condemnation and censure, without [the use of] effective mechanisms, in order to stop Arab bloodshed on the Palestinian lands."[xxii] Furthermore, the platform praises the Palestinian and Lebanese "martyr operations," namely, suicide attacks, against Israel:

The second intifada, and the success of the Lebanese resistance [i.e. Hezbollah] in forcing Israel to evacuate [its army] from south Lebanon, are giving hope to all forces of justice and peace in the Arab region. […] The recent martyr operations did not only put an end to the [Israeli] arrogance, but also raised doubts whether the use of force and violence against the Palestinians is the shortest way to end the intifada and achieve security.[xxiii]

Nour is also known as a critic of normalization with Israel, which constitutes – de jure, at least – an integral part of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. In a recent article, Nour stressed that his objection to normalization may be lifted only by "Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and a fair final solution for the Palestinian problem and for Jerusalem." He explained, "indeed, we have an official peace treaty [with Israel], but sentiments are not controlled by treaties nor by the authority of the government."[xxiv]

As a parliament member, Nour founded the Egyptian parliamentary committee to promote the boycott of Israeli goods.[xxv] Likewise, he blatantly refuses to meet with Israelis.[xxvi] His deep commitment to the Egyptian anti-normalization movement was again revealed last July after his release from prison. After a four year hiatus, he resumed his Wednesday Meetings, a weekly conference held at the Nour Culture Center in Cairo. The first such meeting was dedicated to what was defined as the "crime" of exporting Egyptian natural gas to Israel at a cheap price. It is worth noting, however, that Nour's resentment towards the Israeli-Egyptian gas export agreement is not motivated by economic considerations alone, but also by emotions. During his speech Nour boasted that as early as January 15th 2000 he had requested a clarification from the Parliament in which he asked the Egyptian Petroleum Minister, Samih Fahmi, to explain how exporting gas to Israel is in accordance with Egyptian "sentiments and causes."[xxvii]

At times, Nour's militant attitude towards Israel should not be taken at face value; such rhetoric is merely a way to criticize the Egyptian regime. For example, during the aforementioned Wednesday Meeting concerning the export of gas to Israel, Nour proposed the creation of a blacklist of names that "will be chased by the shame of wasting Egypt's resources." This list included President Mubarak, his son Gamal and other officials.[xxviii] Likewise, in response to the Gaza War, the Tomorrow Party released a statement that "the party condemns the despicable Zionist offensive against the brother Palestinian people, and condemns with the same harshness the helplessness and the absence of strategic vision, which has became synonymous with Egyptian foreign policy during the last years."[xxix]

The frequent use of anti-Israeli rhetoric as a lever against the authoritarian regime was repeated by Nour in other speeches. For instance, in an article commemorating the 41^st anniversary of the 1967 war, he blamed the Arab defeat on the dictatorial Arab regimes:

How can someone who is defeated from within win?! How can he fight when he is hand-cuffed, oppressed by all the [security] apparatuses, worthless and lacking an opinion?! How can he win when he is denied the minimum right to choose who will rule [his country] and who will represent him?! […] Despite this, we decided not to learn the lesson and not to face the origin of the disease. […] After 'some' of the Arab territory had returned, isn't it our right to ask when we will get back 'some' of our democratic rights?[xxx]  

 Pro-America, Anti-Israel

As opposed to many Egyptian liberals with nationalistic tendencies, Nour distinguishes between his approach to the United States and his approach to Israel. This distinction was made explicitly clear in June 2005, when the High Council of the Tomorrow Party discussed whether to approve a meeting between Nour and American Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, during her upcoming visit to Cairo. The party spokeswoman, Gamila Isma‘il, who was married to Nour at that time,[xxxi] announced that "it has been decided that the Tomorrow Party will accept to enter into a dialogue or exchange ideas with any person from within Egypt or from outside of Egypt, whether a governmental official or not, except for people from, or representing, Israel." She concluded, "as such, we welcome discussions with any American or non-American official."[xxxii]

The hesitant willingness to meet with Secretary Rice illustrates Nour's ambivalent position towards the United States during the Bush administration years. On one hand, Nour's run for the presidency in 2005 was partly inspired by President Bush's call for democracy in Egypt. On the other hand, Secretary Rice's public support following his arrest contributed to the regime portraying him as an American collaborator; he was labeled with insulting nicknames such as "Condoleezza's friend" or being called her "common law husband."[xxxiii]

Hence, despite Secretary Rice’s important role in obtaining his release, Nour renounced her support, saying "he is astonished by her words, and feels that they are not reasonable and unreliable." In the same vein, he was reluctant to meet with her, presumably out of fear that such a meeting might cost him votes in the September 2005 election.[xxxiv] Yet during his subsequent imprisonment, Nour was apparently once again looking for American support, despite its potential undesirable side effects. Furthermore, he was disappointed at President Bush’s lack of commitment to his freedom agenda. "I can’t say that the American administration has always been serious in pushing for my release," he said bitterly at that time. "Sometimes it gave priority to principles, but more often interests prevailed.”[xxxv]

The discrepancy between Nour's approaches to the United States and to Israel grew larger after Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009. Nour responded enthusiastically to Obama’s election, and even suggested that pressure from the new American administration played a role in his release.[xxxvi] During his May 2009 speech to Congress, Nour expressed his "high expectations" from President Obama.[xxxvii] Actually, even before the American elections, when Obama was still a candidate, Nour sent him a warm open letter from his prison, ending as follows (in the original English): 

Senator Obama, We await much from you as a Democratic candidate and president expected to lead the whole world towards a real and fair change. Your generation and all the powers of reform, democrats and liberals in Egypt and the Arab world, hope that January 20 [2009] becomes a day of freedom and democracy not only in the United States of America but in the whole world, primarily by rectifying the wrongs caused by long years of supporting dictators under the pretext of protecting interests at the account of principles. Please accept my sincere wishes for your success.[xxxviii]

Yet, even after the Obama administration took office, Nour has still been careful to not be overly identified with the United States. Last May, he refused an invitation to visit Washington, including a private lunch with President Obama and to appear before the American Congress. Instead, he limited himself to a live video conference speech from Cairo, in which he called to expand American foreign aid to Egypt, while restraining his criticism against the Mubarak rule at a lower level than normal. He was determined to not fall into another trap that would enable the Egyptian regime to portray him as a traitor who serves foreign-American interests. On the contrary, in an interview to the Egyptian daily, al-Masri al-Yawm, he stressed that his speech meant "to explain [the Egyptian] point of view to the world".[xxxix]

Nour's Vision for Future Relations with Israel

In light of Nour's hawkish stance towards Israel, it is worth asking how he envisions the future of relations between Egypt and Israel: Does he support the continuation of the peace treaty, or perhaps the return to a state of war? This question became more urgent in light of the Gaza War, as Nour wrote in one of his articles: "there is a question that doesn't stop bothering me," he admitted, "what should we do?! Will we protest, condemn, burn cloths with drawings of the Star of David, threaten, be silent, drown in shame, spit in the faces of our regimes?! […] Is there a reasonable Egyptian with good intentions who expects Mubarak to declare war on Israel?!"

Nour's answer was very decisive: "I believe that 'no' is the only answer to all the aforementioned questions." After rejecting all these militant reactions to the Gaza War, Nour offered his own solution. As usual, he quickly diverted all his arrows from Israel towards the Egyptian regime, criticizing it for "failing" to use its influence in order to prevent "Hamas's mistakes" and "Israeli aggression. […] The only solution," Nour stressed, "is to change the hands that took care of this issue, starting with [Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmad] Abu Al-Gheit. […] The most trivial response to this failure," he continued, "is a consistent opening of the Rafah border crossing and a declaration by President [Mubarak] that he is committed to the verdict of the gas exporting trial."[xl]

Nour, therefore, is encouraging neither a reversal of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty nor return to a state of war with Israel. Nevertheless, as an Egyptian leader, he is suggesting an alternative to the Egyptian official approach regarding the nature of relations with Israel. In another of his articles he hints that Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is the figure he most admires, for his handling of issues regarding Israel and other foreign and domestic affairs. While this article was allegedly written for the sake of glorifying Erdoğan's anti-Israeli position during the Gaza War, Nour peppered the article with the many similarities between Erdoğan's biography and his own: First, Erdoğan is young, 55, and quite unlike politicians of the "older generation"; Second, Erdoğan was imprisoned in 1998 after "the fear from his increasing popularity and public influence pushed the Turkish state to fabricate a ridiculous prosecution against him." Third, in 2007 he formed a new party "in order to fight against poverty, hunger and corruption, and to change the social and the political reality in Turkey."

Nour used his article to co-opt Erdoğan's increasing popularity following the Gaza War, due to his anti-Israeli positions, in order to legitimize and promote a much broader message. At the end of his article, Nour praised Erdoğan's domestic and foreign achievements in Turkey, hinting at his own desire to implement a similar vision in Egypt:

Within a very few years, Erdoğan succeeded in creating a new Turkey, while making the dreams of his people come true and strengthening the domestic political and economical abilities of his homeland. Then, after his genuine domestic achievements, Erdoğan had to rehabilitate the Turkish role in the foreign arena, by strengthening its eligibility for European Union membership and playing important roles in the Middle East and in the Islamic [world]. That was the real beginning of Erdoğan's role in the Gaza crisis, which gained – as most of his positions – the overwhelming support of the people in Turkey.[xli]

Another political figure deeply appreciated by Nour is the Palestinian leader and Fatah senior official, Marwan al-Barghouti, who has been imprisoned in Israel since 2002 on charges of ordering the murder of Israeli civilians and attacks on Israeli soldiers.

Nour believes that Egypt must help the Palestinians find a successor to the President, Mahmoud ‘Abbas, whom he sees as "outdated." This successor, he claims, should be "a middle of the road person, who is not from Hamas, but at the same time, accepted by it. […] Marwan al-Barghouti," he assumes, "is the best one to lead the Palestinians through this era, because he is a symbol of struggling and is also a young charismatic man, who is accepted by all the [Palestinians] sects."[xlii] Nour's preference of al-Barghouti over ‘Abbas does not necessarily indicate his objection to the moderate, compromising line that ‘Abbas represents, but rather his belief that achieving peace requires identifying a strong alternative to ‘Abbas, one who is capable of competing with Hamas's popularity. In fact, Nour attributes great importance to the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he believes has "consumed the blood and capacities of the people and opened the door to fundamentalism, terrorism and oppression" in order to weaken radical Islamic forces like Hamas.[xliii] According to his open letter to Obama, as well as the Tomorrow Party's political platform, Nour accepts the two state solution; in other words, the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, according to the borders of 1967. In this respect, Nour’s view is in tandem with the mainstream international position, including United Nations resolution 242 and the principle of "land for peace."[xliv]

Conclusion

This article has analyzed Ayman Nour's position towards Israel based on his articles, speeches and interviews, as well as official statements by his party. Although Israel is not the focus of Nour's political discourse, he has mentioned Israel in a variety of contexts, including the second intifada, Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Egypt’s export of natural gas to Israel, and the Gaza War. Nour capitalized upon each of these to promote his line against the Egyptian regime. He has repeatedly criticized what he views as the regime's helplessness in the face of Israeli military operations and, moreover, its readiness to foster cooperation and good relations with Israel. This kind of criticism is intended to portray Mubarak's regime as weak, subordinate and betraying Arab national interests by obeying the dictates of Israel and the United States. At the same time, this line also enables Nour and his party to emerge as an honorable, patriotic alternative.

Understanding Nour's motives allows us to understand his position towards Israel as part of a broader line of propaganda and not necessarily as a systematic doctrine. Nevertheless, there are some important conclusions from the American and Israeli points of view.

The pessimistic conclusion is that the most important Egyptian liberal leader still sees Israel as an enemy of Egypt and the Arab world. He has adopted a hostile tone against it, refuses to meet with Israelis and strongly resisting any kind of cultural or economical normalization with Israel. Moreover, his role model for leadership is the Turkish Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who was one of the only world leaders to support Hamas during the Gaza war – alongside the presidents of Iran and Syria – as opposed to the more moderate Arab camp, led by Egypt.

The more optimistic conclusion is that Nour does not call for the annulment of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, and is not interested in resuming warfare against Israel, but rather accepts the existence of Israel alongside Palestine in the 1967 borders. Likewise, his objection to normalization with Israel is conditional, not categorical, and may possibly be lifted in the future, as political circumstances change.

As for further policy proposals: American decision makers should be cognizant of the fact that a liberal Egyptian leader may not necessarily serve their regional interests any better than the current authoritarian Egyptian regime. Therefore, the democratization of Egypt may prove to be a double-edged sword for American interests; the threat includes not only the rise of political Islam in the form of the Muslim Brotherhood, but also liberal forces assuming leadership of the state. In the scenario of Ayman Nour rising to power, at least one major American interest, the stability of the Egyptian-Israeli peace relations, would not benefit.

Finally, there is one last question: Can a liberal who advocates peace with Israel actually become an influential political leader in Egypt and promote his ideas on a national scale? It would seem that at present, at least, this scenario is still within the realm of wishful thinking.

Ofir Winter is a research student at Tel Aviv University, and a former research fellow at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). He thanks Uriya Shavit for his kind support and most valauble suggestions.