Misconstrued and misinterpreted

By Salah Bassiouni *

I would have hoped that Dr Ashour would deal with the matter in a more objective way, but unfortunately, like other critics of the Egyptian Peace Movement, she worked hard to manipulate words and deeds. First, she is not happy with the term "peace", which in her view should be included in the glossary of colonial terms. To prove her point, she cites many of Israel's actions since Camp David, a list to which we can add many acts that no one can deny or defend.

She should have thought, however, that precisely because of this bloody history, all peace-loving forces must join hands to do whatever is possible to achieve the just, comprehensive and balanced peace to which we all aspire. To end a state of war, you must in the end negotiate with an enemy. This enemy is not a phantom, but a state called Israel. If you are against peace, your alternative is war. I wonder if this is Dr Ashour's option. If it is, she should say so openly instead of using non-political rhetoric.

The question is how to combat the policies of the Netanyahu government. The answer is, first, to reject these policies and warn of their consequences. This is being done by President Mubarak and Foreign Minister Amr Moussa, and they are joined by all Arab leaders. Second, our government should exert maximum pressure on the US and Europe in order to force Netanyahu to change his dangerous policies. We have to admit, however, that until now we have not had any tangible success. We must maintain an efficient military force to defend peace against extremism in our region. We must move ahead in our efforts for the socio-economic and scientific development of Egypt. We must insist that no normalisation can take place before the achievement of a just, lasting, comprehensive and balanced peace. We must work with all the pro-peace forces to combat the Likud policies and to change the attitude of that portion of Israeli public opinion which supports Netanyahu's rhetoric.

On this last point, the Egyptian Peace Movement believes that joining hands with the Israeli peace movement is the way to address Israeli public opinion and confirm our belief in the principles of peace.

The joint statement was issued by the Egyptian and Israeli peace movements, and Dr Ashour should have dealt with it in a more comprehensive way, rather than distorting the statement or repeating an article by writer Fahmi Howeidi, in which he analysed the question of territory in Palestine. In the joint statement, Peace Now and the Egyptian Peace Movement agreed that the following principles should guide their work: on the Palestinian-Israeli track, the Palestinians have the right to self-determination and to establish their own state on the basis of the pre-5 June 1967 borders alongside the state of Israel. Jerusalem will remain a united city permanently, with two capitals within the municipal area: the capital of Israel in the Jewish area and the capital of Palestine in the Arab areas. On the question of refugees (from 1948) and uprooted residents (from 1967), the Palestinian state will be entitled to absorb refugees within its borders according to its own considerations. On the Syrian/Lebanese-Israeli track, all parties must comply with the UN Resolutions 242, 338 and 425 and the formula of land for peace to achieve full withdrawal for full peace and maximum security for all.

While Dr Ashour describes the Cairo Peace Society and Peace Now as a contaminated blanket (she seems fond of the 18th-century story), she seems to be against the concept of peace as a strategic option. Though she does not give her own perception, she seems to espouse Fahmi Howeidi's definition of this option as a declaration to the opposing party that, no matter what he does, force will not be used. As Osama El-Ghazali Harb has remarked, "the concept of peace as a strategic option simply indicates that both Egyptians and Arabs are seriously and truly devoted to peace as a solution, but a peace which is long-lasting, comprehensive and just rather than peace as a strategy and tactic to cheat and trick the opposing party." He notes, however, that one must always be careful of the intentions of all others involved in the negotiations. I hope this clarifies the matter for Dr Ashour.

Dr Ashour accuses the Egyptian Peace Movement of giving up 97.4 per cent of Palestine. Such a distortion is utter nonsense. We are dealing with the implementation of Resolution 242, which embodies the principle of land for peace. This resolution is the outcome of the June 1967 War. That is why the joint statement makes it clear that borders should be demarcated along the lines prevailing before 5 June. Again, on Jerusalem, I don't understand what Dr Ashour wants. Does she reject the principle of East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state? It seems to me that her citation of Orwell ("political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible...") could be applied to her own words.

Lastly, Dr Ashour claims a large majority of Egyptian intellectuals oppose normalisation. This is the only statement on which we concur. In fact, neither we or Peace Now have claimed the contrary. We, too, believe that normalisation can only exist after a just, comprehensive and balanced peace is achieved.

Dr Ashour's article, in sum, is nothing but a contaminated blanket, aimed at stalling the peace process and the effort to oppose Mr Netanyahu's policies.

* The writer is a former Egyptian ambassador and the chairman of the Cairo Peace Society.