One of the most famous Egyptian films is ‘Alexandria, Why?' directed by the late Youssef Chahine. The film is autobiographical, as Chahine narrates his life story intertwined with the city's history – a city which, since its inception, has been a model of coexistence. But the question raised by the film's title has now returned, imposing itself on Egyptians and non-Egyptians alike: Was the perpetrators' choice of Alexandria as the location of the suicide bombing – which has caused a shock at all levels, locally, regionally, and internationally – a random choice, or a carefully calculated and deliberate one? The aim of those involved in the attack was to kill the largest numbers of Copts possible. So the question is why was Alexandria the target, but not other Egyptian provinces that often witness sectarian tensions and even clashes? The Patriarch of Saint Mark Episcopate, Bishop Shenouda III is the “Pope of Alexandria”, and the Church in that city is the very church to which all Orthodox Copts in the world belong to. On the other hand, the city houses an active Salafi Islamist movement, and has witnessed major escalation in recent years, such as in the protests held by tens of thousands to object to various issues, mostly related in one way or the other to the church or the Copts. The most notable of such protests were the ones held in the aftermath of the disappearance of a Coptic woman who was said to have converted to Islam before being handed over to the church. In Alexandria as well, there is an overwhelming presence by the Muslim Brotherhood organization, evident from the large victory snatched by the group's candidates in the 2005 elections. This presence is also clear through the religious, social and economic activities of the group in the city's neighborhoods and streets. In truth, the Two Saints church itself had witnessed a sectarian incident four years earlier, when a Muslim – said to have been mentally unstable – stabbed a Copt to death, following sectarian disputes in the same neighborhood. Finally, boosting security and emergency precautionary measures is usually stricter in the center, i.e. the capital, and becomes laxer the further away ‘the target' is from the center; hence, if the target is far from the capital but still receives attention, then it would be an ideal target. As such, the planners and perpetrators of the attack sought to cause an angry and violent backlash in all directions by the Copts, against the first suicide bombing of a Coptic target in Egypt, but which at the same time, is not the first attack to target Copts in the city. Furthermore, they wanted to stir an international response that helps spread the notion that Copts in Egypt are being targeted, or that they have no protection. This would create immense pressure on the regime, which will find itself facing the anger of the Copts in Egypt and abroad, and pressure from the international community. Certainly, the objectives of the attack also include the attempt to establish that the crime was the result of various sectarian incidents that took place before in the city, and as a result of increased tensions between both sides: the Muslims and the Copts in Alexandria, while those in positions of responsibility are unaware of its dangers and implications. This then begs the question: Alexandria, Why? Also, why was the target Coptic and not Jewish, for example? Bear in mind that the Moulid of Abu Hasira [Jewish Festival] was taking place right under their noses in one of the villages of the Buhaira province a few days earlier. This event took place amid strong protests by various segments of the Egyptian people and amid rejection by the residents of the province of the entry of a large number of Jewish tourists and Israelis to the city and the village, as they have repeatedly declared so over the past couple of years. This has prompted strict security measures to protect them at the expense of their comfort and perhaps even safety. The answer here is that the Jewish or Israeli target would not produce the same result. It is no secret that an attack against Israelis may find sympathy and support from various Egyptians and perhaps Arabs, and may lead to Israeli or U.S and international pressure against the Egyptian regime; such a pressure may itself bring about rapprochement between the regime and the people. Therefore, the Coptic target is easy and much more effective, as it produces the desired results for the perpetrators of the attack. As for the identity of the faction that is behind the attack, this is up to the investigation authorities to reveal when the investigation's results are announced. However, it is certain that the fact that the Coptic reaction has remained within the limits of anger or quasi-peaceful protests – without resorting to violence-, does not satisfy the perpetrators and those who support them. Similarly, the sympathy shown by Egyptian Muslims and the condemnations of the attack did not please them, while stances of solidarity expressed by the international community have angered them.
