An editorial by US Ambassador David Welch published in Al Ahram of 20 September irked Egypt's journalists and highlighted US displeasure with repeated suggestions that someone other than Osama Bin Laden is behind last year's attacks on America. "Leading Egyptian newspapers and magazines in the past two weeks alone have published columns by senior columnists who suggested Governments or groups other than Al-Qaeda were responsible," wrote Welch, urging editors to exercise better judgment. "Sadly, such disregard for the facts in such a serious matter can tarnish the reputation of the Egyptian media in the eyes of the world."

Welch said that in view of the "voluminous evidence" pointing to Al-Qaeda — including a confession by Al-Qaeda members aired on Al-Jazeera satellite channel — it is difficult to fathom why the Egyptian press continued to suggest that the US or Israel had staged the attacks. "Either Egyptian journalists are incredibly badly informed " or they are "simply too upset with American policy on other issues to accept the reality on this one."

A riposte came quickly the next day, when a group of journalists, cartoonists and other "intellectuals" issued a joint statement calling Welch's article "an American call for imposing restrictions on press freedom." They also asked the ambassador (whom they think the Bush administration should recall from Cairo) to "invite American mass media to seek facts and stop seeing the region through Israeli eyes only."

The US ambassador also took a swipe at AUC economics professor Galal Amin, without naming him "A leading Egyptian professor of sociology, in a public lecture on September 11, spent nearly half an hour trying to cast doubt on Al-Qaeda's culpability and even went so far as to implicate the American Government by asserting that America had benefited from the attacks," he wrote. Amin was the only "leading Egyptian professor of sociology" giving a lecture on the topic on that day.

Asked to clarify on why Welch chose this time to publish his editorial, US Embassy spokesman Phil Frayne said that the ambassador had planned the article for a few weeks now, but publishing it around the 11th September seemed appropriate. He also denied that the lecture delivered by Amin, a respected (if occasionally quirky) academic, had sparked the idea.

"The Al Jazeera tapes should really put to rest all these conspiracy theories," Frayne said. "That's seeing a camel where there's only a donkey."

Dozens of Islamists, local and foreign journalists and a few secular intellectuals took part in a conference on "The Future of the Islamist Movement in the Aftermath of September 11th."

The one-day conference on September 8th was organized by the Future Center for Studies and Research at the Cairo Helnan Shepheard Hotel and witnessed a remarkably frank discussion on political Islam and where it is going. The participants included some prominent Islamist intellectuals, activists and scholars from the Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. They engaged in heated discussions on the future of Islamism and Muslim-Western relations.

One subject was the recent shift of Gamaa Islamiya, Egypt's biggest militant Islamist group, from violence to politics. After a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of militants, police and civilians, the jailed leaders called for a truce in 1997. This was mostly ignored until June 2002, when suddenly these leaders appeared on the front page of a Government-controlled weekly magazine.

The tone of the conference alternated between calls for understanding between East and West and avoiding the clash of civilizations to angry denunciations of the United States. None exemplified the contrast better than the organizer himself, Montasser Al-Zayat, a lawyer well known for representing Islamists on trial and often considered the de facto spokesman of Gamaa Islamiya.

Al Zayat tried hard to defend Gamaa's sincerity concerning its ceasefire initiative and its willingness to focus more on social and political activities. He also denied that the anti-American sentiments in the Islamic world have anything to do with racism. He blamed the US for them. "The Americans should ask themselves this: Why were the [September 11th] strikes aimed at them... not Europe?" he said. "The answer lies in the US foreign policy's bias towards Israel."

Al-Zayat's comments were viewed by some as contradictory. He tried to present a new modern peaceful face of political Islam, but at the same time he professed extremist ideas on several occasions. The reactions from the participants varied from those who supported the 11th September attacks to those who opposed the whole idea of political Islam. Al- Zayat tried to appease both sides.

At one point, he said in the opening session that "if anyone says 'Death to America' I'm with them, but I'm calling for new strategies and putting forth a new vision... based on reason." After several critical comments from the floor, he was quick to assure everyone that Islamists hold nothing against the American people. Later, he went even further, saying that Muslims should respect the laws of the country they are living in, whether it's Egypt or any Western state.

"We don't hate Copts, we love the Copts," Al-Zayat said, stressing that Islamists don't mind members of Egypt's Christian minority taking leading ministerial positions. But he warned against some Coptic Church officials who have dangerous "political ambitions." Gamaa Islamiya was notorious for its numerous attacks against churches and Coptic businesses in the past, leaving scores of dead civilians. He added that "Gamaa Islamiya was dragged into violence" in the 1980s and 1990s but at present the "bloodshed between Islamic groups and regimes in the region must end."

Al-Zayat shared the opening session of the conference with Mahfouz Azzam, Vice-President of the Islamist Al-Aamal party and Al-Zawahri's uncle. He described his pride in his nephew and harshly criticized America's war on Islam: "What the US is trying to do is to change Islam from within," Azzam angrily commented on the American call for changing school curriculums in the Islamic world, and the pressures it exerts on Muslim charitable institutions and mosques. "The campaigns against Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir and Sudan will definitely awaken the sleeping giant."

In a more analytic vein, Dia Rashwan, senior specialist on political Islam at the Al Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies, argued that local militant groups are giving up violence and trying to re-establish themselves as pragmatic political/social movements, citing Gamaa Islamiya in Egypt and the Islamic Salvation Front in Algeria. The process has been taking place for at few years, but was accelerated by 11 September. He added that the attacks also triggered "the largest security cooperation among states against Jihadi groups," essentially giving a license to Arab states to crack down on all Islamist groups.

Rashwan criticized Western Governments for putting all Islamists in one basket, and exaggerating the strength of Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. He explained that Al-Qaeda as an organization exists only in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula. The other thousands of militants who may share the same radical views in the West and the Arab world are not necessarily under Bin Laden's command. While the "Afghani Arabs" who fought with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have drawn public attention, hardly anyone talks about their former comrade-in-arms who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan but then went back home to their normal lives. Rashwan estimated the returnees to be 40-50,000 persons spread out across the Middle East. Though dispersed and inactive at present, this could change in the near future. "They have [fighting] experience... and may get radicalized by the developments in Palestine and the continuation of America's campaign against what it calls terrorism," he said, citing the Djerba suicide bombing in Tunisia last April which could set the pattern for future spontaneous attacks by these former Afghani Arabs. However, Rashwan didn't discard the possibility of a rapprochement between militant groups and the Arab regimes, because he claims both are subject to American pressures now.

Al Hayat correspondent and expert on Islamism Muhammad Salah followed up by criticizing the US campaign against all manifestations of the Islamist movement, "whether they are peaceful dawa [preaching] or jihadi." He stressed that Al-Qaeda is by no means finished as an organization thanks to the US itself. "America's own policies create the atmosphere favorable for recruiting new members," so there is a continuous pool of recruits spawned by US policies, both in the Middle East and in the West. "Thousands around the world will view US actions as a justification [for more attacks]. America has now become the enemy, talk about the internal enemy has been forgotten."

Some of the most provocative comments (for the audience at least) came from Nasserist human rights lawyer Negad Al Borai, who laid out several questions for the Islamists that contained implicit accusations of insincerity over their renunciation of violence and respect for freedom of expression. "Where do you stand on democracy, and specifically the peaceful rotation of power?" he asked. "Where do you stand on freedom of belief - particularly the right to change one's religion?" he said. "These are important questions that must be answered with honesty and integrity." Participants claimed that all these questions had long ago been answered and that democracy was an integral part of the movement