Pay in advance

By Salama A Salama

---

The debate that flared up over the QIZ agreement is far from being the only controversy in Egyptian-Israeli relations.

Those relations contain stark contradictions between words and deeds, between official Egyptian announcements touting optimism over the future of the peace process and the lakes of blood spilt daily in the Palestinian territories.

The Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul-Gheit defended the agreement saying it was a straightforward trade arrangement from which Egypt would profit. It would open up American markets and help attract investments without affecting Egypt's commitment to defend the rights of the Palestinian people.

In response critics of the QIZ agreement described it as a strategic shift in Egyptian policy and suggested that it was merely the first of many concessions Egypt will make. It is an argument echoed in the Israeli press which has presented the thaw in relations with Egypt as opening up the possibility of establishing relations with other Arab states.

What lies behind the optimism over the peace process being promoted in official circles?

Perhaps it can be explained by conversations with certain American visitors, and by the comments made by President Bush following his election in which he signalled his desire to set up a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. A similar view was echoed by President Hosni Mubarak, most recently in an interview with Der Spiegel in which he talked about setting up a Palestinian state by the end of 2008.

Yet optimism alone has proved powerless in the face of a stream of pronouncements revealing Israel's true intentions. At the Israeli Security Conference held in Herzliya Sharon contented himself with drawing attention to the historic opportunity that would present itself in 2005, while his Political Adviser Dov Weisglass filled in the details. The Gaza withdrawal plan may free the way to negotiations, he said, but they will continue only if they head in the direction Israel wants.

Weisglass based his comments on a speech made by Bush last April in which he gave Israel guarantees over issues -- borders, settlements, the refugees and Jerusalem -- linked to a permanent solution.

Hardly surprising, then, that Israel should continue constructing its apartheid wall and appropriating whatever Palestinian land it feels like. And in the meantime Washington maintains its silence, satisfied that Arafat's exit has solved the problem of finding a suitable partner.

What hope has optimism against gunfire from tanks and warplanes in Gaza that recently resulted in the death of 12 Palestinians and left 300 families homeless?

It was these very operations that gave Hamas and Jihad a reason to reject Abu Mazen's request that they de-militarise the Intifada. Their most serious consequence, though, has been to renew unease and uncertainty over the extent and significance of relations between Israel and Egypt.

Many politicians rejected the QIZ agreement out of hand, seeing it as an advanced form of normalisation. Few view it as coming in response to any shift in Israel's own position. Yet some private sector operators and businessmen rushed to give their full support to the venture on the grounds that there were now official directives permitting increased cooperation.

Despite the hopes -- or dreams -- raised following the signing of the QIZ agreement there is not a shred of evidence indicating any change in the American and Israeli position, and certainly no signs of the kind of shift that Egypt has made. It looks as though Egypt has paid for goods in advance without any guarantee that it will receive them.