People never have and never will all agree on love for a person. If their agreement was possible, they would have agreed on love for the Prophet who brought them the truth. Despite the sincerity, devotion, and faith of the prophets, they could not win the love of all. So, there is no need for anger or rebellion whenever someone dislikes the one they love.

It's worth noting that in our modern era, many people have rallied around the love for one man like they did with former President Gamal Abdel Nasser. His love was not confined to his people only or even the Arab nations, but his love was in the heart of every human hoping for the freedom and independence of their homeland. He was more of a phenomenon than a human. Heroes saw in him an exemplary model to follow. Dreamers saw in him a symbol of sacrifice, selflessness, and patriotism. The general public saw in him what made them believe that he was the leader as he should be; where strength, courage, heroism, and resilience are against the stronger no matter the results.

If we transition from the general to the specific, where the Egyptian people are concerned, we would find a thousand reasons if not more for such love. After years of subordination characterized by humiliation and degradation, a man came and ended it, replacing it with equality. We became like them. The first thing he changed was to demand that the great powers speak to him personally about the affairs of the country without mediation, no guardianship over us by anyone.

During his rule, no voice was louder than his and no word was spoken after his. His speech was commands, and his point of view was correct without thought or discussion. If he spoke, it was heard and obeyed, where everyone believed that there was no opinion more correct than his and no mind more reasonable than his. When he disagreed with Nuri Al-Said, the then Prime Minister of Iraq, about the Baghdad Pact where Iraq joined the pact and Egypt refused, Abdel Nasser did not comment on that, as every country has the right to choose its policy. But when Nuri Al-Said began attempts to join the Arab countries to the pact, Abdel Nasser made his stand, calling the nation to know their main enemy and to focus their mental and physical strength on it, and not to create enmity with those who have not harmed the Arab homeland, which is the Soviet Union. His call was one of the main reasons for the failure of the pact, starting from the July 14, 1958, coup, which ended with the overthrow of the royal regime and the establishment of the Iraqi Republic, with Iraq officially withdrawing from the Baghdad Pact after the killing of Nuri Al-Said, and finally the dissolution of the pact in 1979.

On September 28, 1970, Abdel Nasser left our world, leaving a priceless legacy that was paid for with struggle, resistance, and sometimes blood. However, the cheering soon turned into attack. Unless we knew that the people's love for Abdel Nasser was a sincere love coming from the hearts and not from the tongues, as happens with the dictatorial ruler; we would have said that they applied the principle of "The king is dead, long live the king."

Suddenly, all good turned to evil and every virtue to vice. Everything he was praised for, he was damned for. His love for peace became weakness and surrender. His pursuit of equality between the poor and the rich created a class struggle that did not exist. His refusal to take a great power as an enemy of Egypt became support for communism. Investment and development became embezzlement and squandering.

Rumors increased and journalists divided into two large camps between supporters and opponents, and smaller sections permeating each section.

As long as a person is a sincere supporter or an honest critic, whose thoughts and opinions are shaped by their own thinking and principles, they deserve respect. Indeed, the most challenging form of deception is to turn the pen into one's tool. What is spoken face-to-face, accompanied by the changing tone of voice, the movement of hands, and the overall facial expression, is easily faked due to the array of tools available to the speaker. What is said audibly is less easily falsified due to fewer tools, but it remains easy. However, when you see words on paper, devoid of any emotions or spirit, read it one way or another ten times over, you cannot be deceived. If you read without completely surrendering to the mind, you will inevitably reach the truth of the writer, whether sincere or hired.

When the great writer Tawfiq al-Hakim opposed many of the positions of the former President Gamal Abdel Nasser at a time when hearts overflowed with love for him, he justified this by refusing to get close to Abdel Nasser so as not to fall in love with his personality, which would cloud his vision of the truth. It was not treason, but he believed that his responsibility as a writer, whom people trust, required ensuring neutrality. However, he never attacked him personally, but believed in his great national role and that he was the hero he had previously spoken about in his story "The Return of the Spirit". But he also believed that everyone makes mistakes and that no one is above criticism and accountability, regardless of who they are. Despite this, Tawfiq al-Hakim was not spared by the supporters. The most famous supportive journalist, Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, attacked him. Heikal was Abdel Nasser's companion in meetings, conferences, and even vacations. But does this work in his favor or against him? It works in his favor in that he knows the truth more than anyone else due to his proximity to its source, and it works against him in that his support could be exaggerated out of personal affection. The idea of supporting for personal gain is excluded because all this happened after the death of Abdel Nasser when the mind called for going with the new flow.

The truthfulness of the supporter and the critic does not guarantee the truth of the experience. What most often happens in the Cold War is the creation of reasons for argument, conflict, and distortion without knowing their real source. When both sides of the conflict are those known for their honesty and dignity, there is no room to look beyond this source.

Between one effort and another, we must not forget the universally accepted facts that no one is above criticism and accountability.

And the conversation continues...