Israeli Ambassador to Egypt Shalom Cohen held a press conference on Monday to mark the end of his five-year term in Egypt. Cohen commended political relations between Tel Aviv and Cairo, at the same time describing obstacles hindering cultural relations as “a tragedy.”
Three prominent Egyptian journalists were present at the conference: Hussein Serag from October magazine, Yehia Ghanem from Al-Ahram, and Hossam el-Aidi from Al-Gamahir magazine. The other attendees were foreign reporters.
According to AFP, Cohen said that the number of visits made by senior level Israeli officials to Egypt over the past five years exceeds the number of visits made to some European countries or other very friendly countries.
The Israeli ambassador also mentioned that Egypt had received both Israeli President Shimon Perez and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu three times in one year.
“Egyptian-Israeli cooperation in security issues has attained an unprecedented level,” Cohen said.
Meanwhile, Emad Gad, chief editor of Mokhtarat Israelia, a periodical published by Al-Ahram that features translated selections from the Israeli press, said that Cohen’s statements were “correct and logical,” and pointed out that cooperation between the two countries over security issues is developing.
Israel has not caused any problems on the border with Egypt during Cohen’s five year term, said Gad, in contrast to Palestinian Hamas. Gad said Hamas’s militancy was responsible for the rapprochement between Egypt and Israel.
More evidence that little has yet changed since the Mobarak era on a foreign policy front; from the Mobarak days of unrepresentative complicity, in price fixing Gas to the benefit of Israel against the Egyptian taxpayer, to the disgusting collaboration in the blockade/occupation of Gaza (especially during dire periods such as the ‘cast lead’ war/massacre) amongst other things… the loyalty was reciprocated near the end by Israel, mind you, as they offered Mobarak asylum.
Though there were initial signs of promise, it seems as if they were almost well-calculated moves at feigning a public face of change - with the Rafah crossings far from unconditionally ‘open’ like they said they were planning, and gas exports to Israel remaining in place, despite popular opinion (and continued action) against it.
Though there were indeed positive signs of change at first - towards policy by popular mandate, and with human concern regarding the blockade, rather than complicity - it’s little inside glances like the above article, that make you question if anything has truly changed at all… it remains to be seen how this regional relationship will pan out in the future, with the on-going protests in Tahrir and the upcoming elections.
This is fascinating because according to the latest Brookings Institute poll on Arab Opinions,
- Egyptians are divided on the peace treaty with Israel, with 37% supporting maintaining it, while 35% support cancelling it. The number of supporters increases to 41% if Israel agrees to a Palestinian state. [link]
I’d imagine that support for a peace treaty ensures that many policies akin to those under Mubarak remain partially or fully in place, right? I don’t know about you but with much of the press either inflating minute acts of resistance against Israel within Egypt (such as storming the embassy) or ignoring such acts altogether (such as negative Israel chants/banners during the protest), I’m surprised that the figure is at 37%. Maybe it’s not as easy simply weeding out Mubarak’s policies towards Israel, maybe they have some support from a strong majority of the populace for some reason unbeknownst to me with this data set. However as is always the case with these type of public opinion polls, tread carefully and try not to make any strong assertions based off of them.
In light of recent events and a few posts that have made rounds, I am reminded of this 2009 piece by Joseph Massad. It’s centered around the use of the phrase “right to defend itself” and it’s relationship to Israel. It’s important to note that article was published by the website on the day after the Gaza War was ceased. The following is an excerpt,
The logic goes as follows: Israel has the right to occupy Palestinian land, lay siege to Palestinian populations in Bantustans surrounded by an apartheid wall, starve the population, cut them off from fuel and electricity, uproot their trees and crops, and launch periodic raids and targeted assassinations against them and their elected leadership, and if this population resists these massive Israeli attacks against their lives and the fabric of their society and Israel responds by slaughtering them en masse, Israel would simply be “defending” itself as it must and should.
After taking a couple of shots at Thomas Friedman, Joesph continues,
The major argument here is two-fold, namely that while Israel has the right to defend itself, its victims have no similar right to defend themselves. In fact, the logic is even more sinister than this and can be elucidated as follows: Israel has the right to oppress the Palestinians and does so to defend itself, but were the Palestinians to defend themselves against Israel’s oppression, which they do not have a right to do, Israel will then have the right to defend itself against their illegitimate defense of themselves against its legitimate oppression of them, which it carries out anyway in order to defend itself legitimately.
This is why, not only does Israel have the right to arm itself and to be a nuclear power and to have a military edge over the combined militaries of the entire region in which it lives, but it also must ensure that the military power of its neighbors is used to quell the Palestinians and not Israel, indeed to help Israel lay siege to the resisting Palestinians. When and if Palestinians try to arm themselves to defend their lives against Israeli invasions and slaughter, Israel makes every effort to prevent them from doing so and considers this “illegal smuggling.”
I’m not advocating for an armed resistance but it is important to note that when we hear the phrase right to defend itself brought up in a discussion regarding Israel/Palestine, it’s always at the expense of any discussion about the right of the Palestinians to defend themselves as well. It’s a phrase that seems to solely exist in the realm of fantasy for those that are being systematically subjugated. Understandably, no Israeli should live with the fear that their child, or anyone in any part of the world for that matter and this includes Palestinians, might die at the hands of a few extremists or a rogue state apparatus. However given the context under which Palestinians are forced to live, I am reminded of Omar Barghouti’s words on Democracy Now!,
What’s important is to place this in context, because for many viewers, they would forget that the context is occupation. Israel continues to be the occupying power that’s controlling Gaza, and it has imposed a very illegal, barbaric and immoral siege on Gaza, causing the slow death of hundred, even thousands, of Palestinians, the pollution of the water supply, and many problems with access to healthcare, education. During the 2008-2009 attack on Gaza, Israel destroyed many houses, hospitals, university buildings and schools and so on, U.N. centers. So that’s the context that we have to see this in. It’s not enough to see it as a ping-pong: Hamas attacked this, and Israel retaliated. Israel is never retaliating, because it’s the occupying power, and occupation, by definition, is aggression and violence.
I believe that this is a very important point that is left out of the narrative and it’s important to remember that final sentence moving forward, occupation, by definition, is aggression and violence. Therefore given that understanding of an occupation, why don’t Palestinians living under the occupation have a right to defend themselves?
Disclaimer: This is not an endorsement of Hamas or any extremist faction, nor is it an endorsement of violence, it’s simply one interpretation of what it means for Israel to have the right to defend itself. The issue is complex one and I don’t mean to simplify it in any form by making it black and white. This is simply some food for thought.
A few links of interest:
- This is a link to the Palestine Papers. (remember those?)
- This is a PressTV link on a discussion of Israel’s Nuclear Ambiguity for those that are interested.
- U.S. House bill in the middle of the Gaza War that recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself.
- This is a piece by Michael Oren about why Israel is the Ultimate Ally.
- Google search, Amazon search Right to Defend Itself to see many of the articles, news articles or videos in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.
