The Center for Contemporary Arab Studies hosted [a panel discussion yesterday that addressed the recent clash between Egypt and Algeria for the last African spot in the 2010 FIFA World Cup](https://events.georgetown.edu/events/index.cfm?Action=View&CalendarID=89&EventID=72453).

The panel, entitled “Soccer Wars: Contested Nationalism Between Egypt and Algiers,” was moderated by Michael Hudson, a professor of international relations at Georgetown, and included Dr. Azzedine Layachi from St. John’s University and Drs. Adel Iskandar and Tamim Al-Barghouti, both from Georgetown University.

The panel was arranged in response to recent incidents in which Egyptians were accused of attacking the Algerian players with rocks before the Nov. 14 match, from which Egypt emerged victorious. By winning the game, Egypt tied with Algeria in the number of points needed to qualify for entrance to the World Cup from the African region. In order to determine who would continue to the World Cup, a run-off match was held on Nov. 18 in Sudan. That match confirmed the place for Algeria in a 1-0 win, but days of violence ensued, characterized by attacks on Egyptians in Sudan and in Algiers, as well as angry anti-Algerian demonstrations in Cairo.

Layachi, who was first to speak, provided an assessment of the situation from an Algerian perspective. He specified that the reasons for violence lay in common issues pertaining to both Algerian and Egyptian society, including patriotism, civility and order as well as identity.

“It was independence again,” Layachi said, characterizing the atmosphere in Algeria after the win. Soccer, he argued, unified sub-identities within Algeria and so gave legitimacy to the government.

The governments of Egypt and Algeria temporarily lifted emergency laws on demonstrating, Layachi also said.

“Political mobilization could happen as a result,” Layachi said. He ended his speech, however, with an assurance that Algerian-Egyptian relations will return to normal, which he described as “endearing,” despite the current diplomatic freeze.

Following Layachi’s remarks, Iskandar lectured on the role of the media in the buildup leading to the matches and the consequences that had occurred in the aftermath.

“There was so much at stake,” Iskandar said, highlighting the large-scale funding in the campaigns and how neither country had been to the World Cup in two decades.

“New media is the ultimate battlefield,” Iskandar said. He gave examples of Egyptian telecommunications companies mobilizing religious sentiment, and noted the political opportunities the soccer matches provided for the Algerian and Egyptian governments.

Iskandar continued his presentation with examples of hate media and the use of nationalistic as well as chauvinistic imagery. He also argued that reconciliatory media has received little attention and has produced little effects so far.

“[The rivalry] goes to the root of nationalism and Arabism,” he said.

Finally, Al-Barghouti spoke of the involvement of soccer with nationalism and political legitimacy, especially in Egypt.

“[The clash] is another example of the failure of Egyptian nationalism,” Al-Barghouti said.

He further explained how Egyptian nationalism is based on the concept of an enemy and that the lack of an “other” translates into a need to create a symbol. Soccer for Egyptians, Al-Barghouti said, has become a political rallying point that fails because of its inconsistency and inability to provide a viable “other.”

He concluded that soccer ultimately helps to provide political legitimacy when it coincides with domestic politics.

“It was . a good intellectual discourse,” Zulkifly Malek (MAAS ’11) said.

alek said he found the event to be interesting because it provided academic information on a subject on which the media provides a generalized background.”