Blame Israel

'Blame Israel'

---

Ahmed Maher

Thirty years ago career diplomat Ahmed Maher, then the head of foreign minister Mohamed Ibrahim Kamel's office, went to Camp David, the US president's country retreat. He was part of the delegation that accompanied President Anwar El-Sadat. There were 12 days of tough negotiations with the Israelis, led by Prime Minister Menachem Begin. The talks resulted in the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement on 26 March, 1979. The Middle East has never been the same since. In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly Maher assesses the agreement and Egypt's role then and now, most recently during Israel's 22- day war on Gaza.

---

Three decades on, what benefits have actually accrued from the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement?

The whole of Egypt's territory has been liberated, freeing up assets that could then be put to work to stimulate economic growth and promote development domestically. After the peace treaty we were also in a position to push more forcefully for a comprehensive [peace] settlement. The goal of President Anwar El-Sadat had always been to liberate Egyptian territory through [the 1973] war followed by negotiations. He never had a bilateral solution between Egypt and Israel in mind.

One has to remember this was a very difficult game plan because Israel wasn't ready for a comprehensive settlement. Its calculations were that it could draw Egypt out of the conflict and then have freedom to deal with the rest of the Arab countries. This is why I always say there was a misunderstanding. For Sadat it was a first step, but for the Israelis, particularly Begin, it was a last agreement. I think that Begin, when he realised that Sadat wasn't abandoning the Palestinian cause or other Arab countries, thought that Sadat had fooled him, though in signing a peace deal with Egypt Israel obtained something.

I think that if we had not quickly taken advantage of the victory of 1973 we would still be negotiating for an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. In the end it's a plus for Egypt. Unfortunately the original plan to move quickly towards a comprehensive settlement didn't work because it was never in the minds of the Israelis.

---

Critics of the peace deal say the benefits are far outweighed by the costs. Now Egypt is signatory to a Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) agreement allowing Israel access to the economy. Egypt also provides Israel with cheap natural gas, all without seeming to receive anything in return. There are those who fear that Egypt appears to have been designated a role as Israel's border policeman following Ariel Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005...

The peace treaty established normal relations with Israel, meaning that Egypt could trade and deal politically with it. In Cairo's view, those trade and political dealings present an opportunity to move towards a comprehensive settlement. None of the moves Egypt has taken towards Israel indicate disinterest in relations between Israel and the rest of the Arab world. We have been part and parcel of every effort to solve the Palestinian problem, problems in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. Rather than looking at isolated details you should examine the bigger picture, which is that the Egyptian position has always been that peace between Egypt and Israel can never replace a comprehensive solution that satisfies all Arab states. And it's completely wrong to say Egypt is Israel's policeman in Rafah. Egypt respects the peace treaty and will protect its own borders with Israel.

---

Why is there no comprehensive peace after 30 years?

People blame all the parties but by far the greatest portion of blame rests with Israel, which has never taken a bona fide position towards the rest of the Arab world. It is clear that Israel only wanted to create a rift between Egypt and the rest of the Arab states. I believe that the international community should have intervened in order to achieve what was Egypt's aim from the beginning -- a comprehensive settlement.

---

Egypt cannot open the Rafah border crossing without Israeli consent. How can that be squared with sovereignty over its borders?

Egypt is not part of the Rafah border agreement [between Israel and the Palestinian Authority]. Egypt is sovereign over its own territory and it opens the border when it deems it necessary. It has opened the border several times to allow humanitarian relief without the consent of anyone. The Egyptian position is that it is not enough to open the Rafah border. All border crossings between Palestine and the rest of the world should be opened. Technically, the Rafah border doesn't allow for the passage of goods. It is only for people.

The basic problem is the blockade to which Gaza is being subjected and which must come to an end. Egypt is doing what it can. Maybe some people think it is not enough and that it should do more. The fact is, though, that the only relief from the blockade of Gaza is via Rafah. Meanwhile, Egypt is doing everything possible to work towards the lifting of the blockade.

---

During the war Egypt came under attack, from Western organisations like Human Rights Watch, who charged that by keeping the Rafah border crossing closed Cairo was contributing to a war crime.

This is total nonsense. I think that they should direct their ire at Israel, the real culprit in this particular crime. Egypt opened the border as it deemed necessary. It could have done more, yes, that's true. But we must apportion blame where it belongs. Any major criticisms should be directed at Israel.

---

But Israel is an occupying power. Egypt is not.

Israel is an occupying power and accordingly is bound by the Geneva conventions. Blockades are not allowed. These organisations should blame Israel for not recognising the legal responsibilities placed on any occupying power.

I'm no apologist for Egypt. Yes, I would like to see the Rafah border open all the time. Yes, a lot more should have been done. But it is unfair to try to blame Egypt while forgetting the main culprit, the blockade imposed by Israel.

---

How did you feel during the war, thinking at the time that your country wasn't doing enough to open the border?

I was very angry with the Israelis. You shouldn't direct your anger at details. What was important was that the Israelis had imposed a blockade and the international community was acquiescing because the [Palestinians] elected democratically a government, Hamas, that Israel and the West didn't like. This isn't acceptable.

Egypt faced two responsibilities. One was to safeguard its own borders, the other to ensure the Palestinians received enough to meet their basic needs. This was done, not on any permanent basis, but through extemporary arrangements. I would have liked those arrangements to have been more liberal. As it was they were determined with an eye on the security of Egypt. Egypt is responsible for its own security. Those who blame Egypt may have some cause but the real focus of their criticism should be Israel.

---

By recognising Israel's right to exist hasn't Egypt also recognised its right to defend itself from the resistance, given that it is an occupying power?

No. If you believe the creation of Israel was a mistake, that is one thing, but Israel is there and has to be dealt with. When we recognised its existence we didn't recognise that in 1948 Jews from all over the world had the right to come to Palestine and take the land of the Palestinians and create a state. But the state is there, and we recognise that state. Also we believe that every country has the right to defend itself. We also believe that occupied peoples have the right to defend themselves. In the case of the occupier and the occupied we certainly take the side of the occupied, and support their right to defend themselves and resist occupation.

---

But by recognising Israel in 1979, and also supporting the right of the Palestinians to resist occupation, doesn't this place Egypt in a tricky situation?

No. We recognise Israel within its pre-1967 borders. The people who are occupied have the right to resist. Israel could return to its 1967 borders and live in peace. This is what the Arab Initiative is about. If Israel confines itself to the 1967 borders all Arab countries will establish normal relations and recognise it.

---

Why did Egypt withdraw its ambassador from Tel Aviv when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, then again during the second Intifada, yet during the Gaza war the Israelis hailed Egypt's role?

Taking Israeli propaganda as fact has always been a mistake. Withdrawing or not withdrawing an ambassador is a political decision that is taken within a wider political context. Egypt opposed and attempted to put an end to the war and tried to help the Palestinian people. You might disagree as to how this was done but you can't argue that the aim of Cairo's actions was not to end the war.

You take one particular action in a given situation because you think it will help you reach your goal. You don't automatically repeat it in a different situation if you feel it will not be efficacious. All Egypt's energy was directed towards ending the aggression.

---

Egypt now seems to be a major player in the moderate Arab camp...

Says who?

---

President Hosni Mubarak will not be attending the next Arab summit in Doha...

Again, says who? No announcement has been made till now so we can expect the president to go. These divisions between moderates and non-moderates, they are all fictions. Arab countries act according to the Arab peace initiative that was agreed unanimously in Beirut in 2002. Who are the moderates and who are the extremists? There might be divisions over tactics but the strategy is the same. The strategic option is peace.

There are different opinions between Arab states but their goals are the same. There have been meetings to bring Arab leaders together. Some of them have been called moderates, others extremists. But we don't have to accept Israel's definition of who we are.

---

Some Palestinians complain Cairo has become a neutral mediator between them and Israel?

We are not neutral in our mediation. The Palestinians come here and they ask for Egypt's help. Why would they do so if they did not know they had the support of Egypt. The Palestinians know that Egypt wants to help them create a state. There is nothing that indicates that Egypt is an ally of Israel. We will never be one, and that is a basic position, running from the top to the bottom. There is no love between Egypt and Israel and no acceptance of what Israel is doing. I don't know where this idea stems from. It is nonsense.

---

Then why was Egypt's role hailed so often, both by Israeli officials, and in the Israeli media, during the war?

Don't listen to Israeli propaganda. It's absolutely wrong. Cairo was very angry about what the Israelis were doing and strived in many ways to put an end to the situation. The street was angrier than the government, but that's normal. Maybe the government didn't do enough. But the general position was always opposed to Israel's actions. How this was expressed, both the means and the words, is something we can debate. One thing, though, is certain. No one in Egypt ever offered an excuse for what Israel did.

---

What was the thinking behind banning aid convoys from crossing at Rafah both during and before the war?

The arrangements for the Rafah border allow the passage of persons not goods. In some cases goods were allowed through Rafah. There were efforts by Egypt and the international community to allow goods to pass through Karam Abu Salim.

---

But during the war why did Egypt still commit itself to the Rafah Agreement while seeming content to ignore the Geneva conventions?

Two reasons. Some humanitarian aid passed through Rafah but the general thrust was to force the Israelis, and to press the international community to pressure Israel, into opening other routes. Some border crossings were opened as a result. The point was also not to let Israel evade its responsibilities and avoid ending the blockade. It's always something you have to weigh in fashion that establishes the principle that these borders should be open for the Palestinians.

Egypt wanted to establish the fact that Israel has no right to blockade the Palestinian people and prevent them from getting food and medicine.

---

But it makes no sense to starve a population to prove a point...

[Egypt] wasn't starving the population. Many aid convoys got through Rafah.

---

The Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement gives both parties the right to revise security arrangements in Sinai. Why has Egypt refrained from exercising this right?

Obviously because the military don't see any need to do so. They are confident of their ability to protect Sinai. If they wanted to increase the security presence Egypt would have asked to do that.

---

But there are concerns that as a result of the peace agreement at least a third of Sinai lacks the military presence required to maintain security on the peninsula. This was an issue following the 2004 Taba bombings. Even senior officials, like then-presidential adviser Osama El-Baz, said it was necessary to revise the treaty provisions.

Sinai is not a disarmed area. It is divided into three sections with security presence decreasing in the areas closest to the Israeli border. But rest assured, this is no obstacle to protecting Sinai from any aggression.

---

Thirty years after Camp David, why does the official discourse in Egypt regard Iran, and not Israel, as the main threat to our national security?

I don't think anyone in Egypt regards Iran as a danger to national security. Yes, there are problems between Egypt and Iran. Some fear Iran for historical reasons, or cite the issue of Sunni versus Shia, which always sounds very strange to me. Iran is a regional player and we might not agree with its policies but the issues should be addressed through dialogue not [hostile] media campaigns. Today [US president] Obama wants a dialogue with Tehran and Britain is ready to talk to Hizbullah. There are efforts to find solutions through diplomacy.