In this article we wish to present our perspective of an embryonic
attempt to conduct a meaningful political dialogue between Egyptian
and Israeli peace activists in 1997-1998. We aspire both to provide
first-hand information on the development and outcome of the
dialogue and to analyze our experience and focus upon its relevance
to the wider intricacies and difficulties of the peace-building
process in the Middle East. More specifically, we intend to point
out some similarities and differences in the aspirations and
attitudes of Israelis and Egyptians towards peace, and the
different ways in which the two parties conceive peace activism at
the present stage.
The Egyptian Reservations
This article is based on many conversations held with Egyptian
colleagues who shared these observations with us. It has been 20
years since president Anwar Sadat came to the Israeli Knesset. As a
result, war and bloodshed were stopped; however, the psychological
barriers between the two peoples have not been removed.
Since the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, which
isolated Egypt in the Arab world, the majority of Egyptian
intellectuals have adopted a unanimous and relentless position
against the bilateral peace and normalization with Israel. This
trend intensified with the political events of the early 1980s:
First, Israel did not fulfill and respect all the commitments it
signed in the Camp David Accords concerning the Palestinian
question. Furthermore, Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was
followed in 1987-1991 by the hard-handed oppression of the
Palestinian population during the Intifada years. These events made
it very easy to present the Camp David Accords in Egyptian and Arab
public opinion as a betrayal of the Arab cause and Arab solidarity.
Hence, it became increasingly difficult to implement clauses in the
peace treaty that were supposed to facilitate a gradual
normalization between the two societies. These clauses addressed
cultural exchange, joint youth and sports activities, joint
research and academic cooperation between universities and research
institutes, as well as large-scale joint economic ventures.
The leading factor behind the strong opposition to normalization
was the Egyptian civil society at large, especially the various
syndicates which issued a boycott on all normalization activities
with Israel, including dialogue with progressive Israeli peace
forces. Despite the enormous changes in world order and the
progress towards peace in recent years, this boycott still
remains.
Nonetheless, some signs of change started to occur after the
assassination of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the
accession to power of Netanyahu in 1996. The policy of the
right-wing coalition in Israel then was perceived as a great threat
to the revising of Egyptian policy over the last 20 years. Leading
Egyptian intellectuals started to question the policy of
disregarding the pluralistic nature of Israeli society and of
eschewing dialogue with the progressive peace forces. Moreover,
there were some second thoughts about the political wisdom of not
actively reaching out to the Israeli peace forces at a time when
they were under serious attack during the last period of the late
Rabin's term of office.
The First Steps
In January 1997, President Hosni Mubarak granted a formal reception
to an Israeli Peace Now delegation. The president made a point of
stressing the importance of the Israeli peace movement as a major
partner with a special responsibility and duty to facilitate and
speed up the resolution of the conflict. Consequently, the Peace
Now delegation met some independent intellectuals who to some
extent were already engaged in informal relations with Israeli
intellectuals. These people regarded the presidential reception and
its extensive coverage in the media as signs encouraging them to go
forward with their initiative. At more or less the same time, in
early 1997, the International Alliance for Peace in the Middle East
was established in Copenhagen, Denmark, with the participation of
prominent Egyptian, Jordanian, Palestinian and Israeli
personalities - some of the latter from the center of the Israeli
political map. The Egyptian press, mainly the opposition media,
fiercely attacked the joint declaration that was published
afterwards.
At this stage Lutfi Al-Khouly, head of the Egyptian Alliance,
accepted an invitation by Amos Elon of the Copenhagen Alliance and
Peace Now to participate in a Peace Now demonstration against
Israeli construction plans at Har Homa/Jabal Abu-Ghneim. During the
first meeting between the Egyptian activists and Israeli Peace Now
activists, the two sides opened up the most controversial issues of
the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. In the course
of these discussions it became clear that the Egyptian delegation
was unaware of Peace Now's political positions concerning the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict that:
* The Palestinians have the right to self-determination and to
establishing their free state alongside Israel;
* The 1967 border should serve as the guideline for the future
borders between the two states;
* The Jewish settlement activities constitute a major obstacle to
peace and thus must be stopped;
* Jerusalem should remain united but be shared by the two peoples
and serve as capital of the two states.
These positions were much closer to the Arab position than those of
the Copenhagen Alliance, thus making Peace Now a more accepted
partner for Egyptian public opinion. The two delegations decided to
continue the bilateral dialogue. Two weeks later, Peace Now's
policy position on final-status issues was published in a very
prestigious political debate page in the Al-Ahram newspaper. The
publication engendered an extensive public debate in the Egyptian
press. Though the document was mostly criticized, it was actually
the first time that an Israeli peace movement had any kind of
serious, factual and objective exposure in the Egyptian
media.
The Cairo Meeting 10.7.1998 - 14.7.1998
A short while later, the two parties, six members of each side (1),
resumed their discussions in Cairo in a three-day seminar at the
Afro-Asian Center for Intercultural Dialogue, headed by Mr.
Al-Khouly.(2) The seminar aimed at clarifying the shared vision of
peace, as well as to work out an acceptable joint platform and
organizational framework for future cooperation. When the
participants introduced themselves, it became evident that most of
them came from a leftist political background. Most of the Egyptian
counterparts had until then been opposed to the Camp David Accords
and, therefore, had undergone a major political shift.
As for the Israeli group of veteran Peace Now activists, the
meeting with the Egyptians was a long-awaited and natural
development, since most of them had been engaged for almost three
decades in persuading the Israeli public about the feasibility and
necessity of a political compromise that can lead to peace with the
Palestinians and the Arab world. After clarification, it was agreed
that both sides regard the solution to the Palestinian problem as
the key factor for achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive
peace in the region. The parties agreed that the Middle East should
become free of the threat of war and destruction and transformed
into a haven of cultural, technological and economic
development.
The Egyptian colleagues reiterated that peace and regional
stability were a major Egyptian strategic interest, a key factor in
ensuring and enhancing the future progress and development of the
Egyptian economy, the civil society and the society at large. They
regarded globalization and regional cooperation as a new stage in
international and regional relations, both interdependent and
enhancing the peace process at the same time. The Israelis stressed
their vision and understanding of peace as being strongly related
to the very existential needs of security and safety. They
expressed their wish that after the final peace agreements are
signed and implemented, Israel should be accepted and integrated
into the region within recognized and legitimate borders.
In light of the broad agreements, the parties tried to discuss an
accepted framework for mutual cooperation and peace activism. At
this stage, the gap between the perspectives and expectations of
both sides became evident: The Israelis were expecting to draw a
plan for widening and deepening the dialogue between Peace Now
members and the Egyptian members of the Alliance. The Egyptians
insisted that peace activism should concentrate on the Israeli
side, mobilizing Israeli public opinion and putting pressure on the
Israeli government to comply with formerly signed agreements and to
move forward with the peace process. The problematic question of
"normalization" and the wider concepts regarding Israel's role and
place in the Middle East emerged in full force. The Egyptian
intellectual discourse is much preoccupied with the questions of
the Egyptian national identity and there are two main competing
perspectives presented: Pan-Arab nationalism versus the Middle
Eastern perspective. The Pan-Arabic approach relies strongly on
Arab affiliation, solidarity and commitment, while the Middle
Eastern approach wishes to enlarge the scope of the new identity,
including non-Arab elements such as Turkey, Iran and even Ethiopia.
Israel can be accepted only in a larger regional framework.
According to the Egyptian perspective, the difficulty of
integrating Israel into the region is not just cultural, linguistic
and national. Israel is not located in a remote corner of the
region - on the contrary, it is located right in the center, thus
separating Egypt from her natural "Arab habitat" and natural
extension in the Levant, restricting Egypt to Africa and the Third
World. Furthermore, Israel is conceived as a threat to Egyptian and
Arab hegemony because of its economic and technological
superiority. Israel cannot be allowed to enjoy economic advantages
before a comprehensive settlement has been reached. In the future,
when peace is achieved, Israel can and should be integrated into
the region on condition that it re-orients itself towards the
Middle East, giving up her present clear-cut Western and European
orientation.
The Israeli delegates reiterated that Israel's regional integration
cannot be preconditioned by a unilateral demand to give up its
identity, which is not monolithic but multicultural, embodying a
mixture of various Jewish identities as well as those of the
minorities living in Israel. The Arab world has to accept Israel in
the future in a peaceful Middle East that is based on principles of
multiculturalism - religious, ethnic and cultural pluralism.
Both groups of peace activists face opposition in their respective
societies: The opposition in Egypt continues to oppose both the
Camp David and Oslo agreements, regarding them as an illusion,
leading to a dead end. In a "mirror image," these very arguments
are used by the Israeli right to prove that there is no chance for
real peace with the Arabs as they deny the very right of Israel to
exist. Therefore, the so-called peace process is nothing more than
a new strategy in the "stage-by-stage" scheme to destroy
Israel.
After three days of continuous dialogue and debate, the parties
modified and concluded the initial declarations of principles. It
was agreed that the Egyptian Copenhagen Alliance chapter will
initiate a new NGO as the counterpart of the Israeli Peace Now, and
the two parties would announce their joint declaration of
principles in a press conference.
The Breakthrough: A Joint Press Conference - Cairo,
7.6.1998
The Cairo Peace Society (CPS) was registered in March 1998
following a period of stalemate due to the opposition's attempt to
prevent its establishment and legal registration, through various
forms of intimidation by the press and by their respective
syndicates against some of the founders of the society.
In a preliminary meeting, Egyptian ambassador Salah Bassiouny, the
newly elected chairman of the CPS, declared that the role of the
CPS was "to act within the law to strengthen the support for the
peace process in Egyptian public opinion," adding that "the CPS
will be engaged in educational and cultural activities with the
intention of expressing to the Egyptian public opinion a more
balanced view of Israeli society, namely that it is not monolithic
and that it comprises progressive and peace-seeking elements as
well. These steps will try to amend the hitherto distorted image of
Israeli society due to long years without objective and balanced
information."
The Israeli members had the opportunity to meet with some 30
founding members and sympathizers of the CPS, all of them
outstanding members of the Egyptian intellectual community:
lecturers, journalists, authors, ex- ambassadors, as well as
distinguished members of the business community. In discussions
with this group, the Israelis focused on the discrepancy between
the Egyptian assertion that most of the Egyptian people want and
support peace, while the media is almost unanimously hostile
towards Israel. Against these assertions, the Egyptians claimed
that the Israeli media was very selective and biased while
reporting on Israeli-Egyptian relations. Their main concern was
about the overemphasis of the attacks and slanders in the Egyptian
"yellow press," while minimizing and ignoring information about
peaceful and constructive relations manifested in tourism and
economic relations, and ignoring facts like Israel being Egypt's
second major trade partner in the Middle East.
The mirror image syndrome manifested itself once again during a
discussion of the stereotypic and distorted concepts that prevail
in both societies concerning the image of the other. Both societies
suffer from psycho-political complexes regarding the "real"
intentions of the other, due to their respective collective history
and experiences.
The Israelis suffer from the "Holocaust complex" - an existential
anxiety and a deep-seated fear of annihilation based on the
traumatic Jewish history of many years of persecution in Europe
that culminated in the Holocaust. Unfortunately, the Arabs don't
know how to address and allay these fears that are also based on
the past Arab threats to eliminate Israel and old slogans like "We
will throw the Jews into the sea." The Egyptians suffer from an
"imperialism complex" and the fear of being dominated by a European
minority. The suspicion of Israel's real intentions is increased
because of the latter's insistence on keeping its nuclear
capability.
The Press Conference - June 1998
The press conference held at the Sheraton Gezirah was the first
political event of its kind ever organized by a group of civilians
in Cairo, not to mention the fact that the Israeli delegation was
speaking directly and openly to Egyptian public opinion. The event
attracted a large audience of more than 100 journalists, foreign
embassy personnel, as well as members and supporters of the
CPS.
The joint statement focused on the basic premises for peace in the
Middle East: the principle of land for peace and the establishment
of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza
alongside Israel. More specifically, Jerusalem should remain united
while hosting two capitals for the two states. The Palestinian
refugees will have the right to return to the Palestinian state and
receive compensation for their property. The declaration
unanimously condemned unilateral steps that endanger the peace
process, including Jewish settlements and all acts of violence
against civilians. Furthermore, the declaration stated that
comprehensive peace should entail full Israeli withdrawal from
Syrian and Lebanese territories, as well as aiming at a region free
from weapons of mass destruction.
The presentation of the joint declaration was followed by an open
and straightforward debate that went on for more than three hours.
The audience questioned both the legitimacy and authenticity of the
CPS in the Egyptian political and intellectual milieus, and the
effectiveness of Peace Now as an active agent for change in Israeli
public opinion; it also attacked the validity and acceptability of
the joint document.
The late Lutfi Al-Khouly presented the case for a negotiated peace
with the former enemy - Israel - bravely and forcefully,
reiterating that peace was the only option for the people of the
Middle East. He was addressing not only the actual audience but
also the opposition to peace in Egypt and the entire Arab world:
"To those who claim that they want peace without Israel, I say,
There is no peace in the region without Israel. Israel is a fact
and is here to stay. In return for ending the occupation and
withdrawing to the pre-67 borders she is entitled to security and
to be accepted as a state in the family of nations in the Middle
East."
When Peace Now was repeatedly attacked for not being effective
enough in bringing about a significant change in favor of peace in
the Israeli public opinion, one of the participants called out in
response: "Stop accusing the Israeli peace movement for just
talking. Don't forget that these people have been crying out for
peace for more than 20 years and they came here to Cairo to say
that they want peace. You'd better start asking yourself whether
the Arabs and the Egyptians really want peace."
In the aftermath of the press conference, President Mubarak held a
formal reception for the members of the two movements. The meeting
took place in Al-Ittihadiya Palace and lasted two hours, during
which the president expressed his approval of the efforts of the
two movements. Addressing the Egyptian CPS members the president
said: "Go forward! You will meet objections, but, in due time,
everybody will know that you were doing the right thing!" The
meeting was widely covered by Egyptian TV and, for two days, the
scenes portraying the president and the two delegations were shown
several times on the First Channel.
One cannot underestimate the importance of this event. It was the
first time in the history of the relations between Egypt and Israel
that the unanimous boycott of the Egyptian intelligentsia over an
open civil dialogue with Israeli peace forces was broken. Moreover,
the press conference was followed by an intensive debate in the
Egyptian press, allowing the advocates of peace and free dialogue
with the Israeli peace forces to present their case, starting to
address openly the pluralistic nature of Israeli society. The
general feeling was that the press conference created "a point of
no return" as far as the legitimization of Egyptian and Israeli
peace movements' dialogue was concerned.
Concluding Remarks
From the first meeting with our Egyptian colleagues we asked
ourselves to what extent is the Egyptian peace movement an
authentic peace organization motivated by genuine pro-peace beliefs
and attitudes, or rather an artificial structure created by the
authorities at a specific time and for specific and short-lived
purposes.
During our two meetings with our CPS colleagues, we were granted
formal receptions by President Mubarak, Foreign Minister Amr Moussa
and Dr. Osama El-Baz, the president's senior political advisor.
These meetings made it clear to us that our Egyptian colleagues
held very intimate and close relations with their authorities. Yet
this does not prove that their action was not authentic. We
understood that the purpose of these meetings was to support the
activity of the Egyptian peace activists and strengthen their
position in the local public opinion. This course of action
revealed to us the very different nature of the political
circumstances in which the two movements, the Egyptian and the
Israeli, act. The Israeli Peace Now is a grass-roots movement,
aiming to impact on public opinion from below, yearning to create
an upward movement of influence that will eventually affect the
decision-makers. In Egypt the situation is different: in order to
be able to impact on public opinion, one must have the
legitimization and sanction of the authorities. We firmly believe
that our Egyptian colleagues have a sincere and genuine motivation
to push forward the peace process for the benefit of their society.
This motivation is based on their personal conviction that peace is
a strategic interest for Egypt, and the only realistic option for a
better future for the region as a whole.
What is the impact of the Egyptian peace movement more than three
years after its establishment? One year after the Sheraton press
conference, the International Alliance held a large-scale public
peace conference in Cairo in June 1999 with more than 200
participants. The public reaction to this event was enormous - both
positive and negative - and the issue is now ever-present in
Egyptian intellectual discourse and widely represented in the
international Arab written and electronic media. More and more
independent intellectuals and private people speak out freely and
directly in favor of peace with Israel. There are many Israelis who
would like to see a rapid process of normalization with Egypt,
i.e., cultural, educational and other bilateral civil projects.
These people have to be patient. It seems that until a
comprehensive peace in the region is achieved, the only feasible
connection between the two societies is a political dialogue,
enabling us through an exchange of views and information to become
acquainted with the sensitivities and needs of the other side. It
emphasizes common views and brings to light disagreements.
Endnotes
(1) The Israeli participants in these meetings were: Dr. Mordechai
Bar-On, a historian, former MK and colonel (Ret.) in the IDF; Prof.
Arieh Arnon, economics, Ben-Gurion University; Prof. Dan Jacobson,
labor studies; Prof. Jochanan Peres, sociology, Tel Aviv
University; Yehudith Harel, organizational consultant; Motty
Awerbuch, playwright. The Egyptian participants were: The late
Lutfi Al-Khouly, author, playwright, leading journalist and
intellectual; Dr. Abdel Monem Said Ali, head of the Al-Ahram Center
for Strategic Studies; Ambassador (Ret.) Salah Bassiouny; Mr. Ali
Al-Shalakany, lawyer and intellectual; Prof. Mourad Wahbah,
philosopher, Ein Shams University; and engineer Rida
Muharram.
(2) Al-Khouly had a remarkable record, not just as a leading
leftist Egyptian intellectual, author, playwright, journalist and
editor of a prestigious opinion page in Al-Ahram, but also as a
leading fighter for the Palestinian cause. He considered any
bilateral and hence "separate" peace with Israel as betraying
Palestinian and Arab interests. Therefore, the late Al-Khouly
opposed the visit of president Sadat to Israel, became a vehement
and outspoken opponent and critic of the Camp David Accords, and
even left Egypt in 1979, when his position became most untenable,
and returned only after Sadat's death. While in self-imposed exile
in Tunisia, his friend and ally Yasser Arafat convinced him that
peace with the Israelis was inevitable. Al-Khouly made a historic
step when he agreed to join the Madrid delegation in 1991 and later
to initiate the Copenhagen Group. After the murder of prime
minister Rabin, Al-Khouly and other prominent members of the
Egyptian group came to the conclusion that disregarding and
boycotting the Israeli peace forces is a counterproductive strategy
for those who wish to promote a politically negotiated peace in the
region. Thus Al-Khouly and the other members of the Egyptian peace
movement made a major ideological shift that enabled them to engage
in dialogue with Israelis.