CAIRO, 12 October 2004 — For decades the Israelis have enjoyed a love affair with the unspoiled beauty and tranquility of Egyptian Sinai and its Red Sea resorts — so near and yet so far from the crowded commercialism of Eilat.
A post-1967 popular Israeli love song dedicated to the jewel in Sinai’s crown goes thus: “to Sharm-El-Sheikh, we’ve returned to you a second time. You are in our hearts...always.”
As Gideon Levy indicates in Monday’s Haaretz in his poignant article “Goodbye Sinai”, as a result of the bombing of the Hilton Hotel in Taba and two of its sister resorts, that love affair might finally be over.
Writes Levy: “Something happened to Israelis when they entered Sinai...for the veterans of the place, being in Sinai was much more than a holiday.
It was the only place of refuge, a haven from day-to-day troubles, from the terror that is all around us, and an escape from Israelis and from Israeliness, too.” He forgot to mention it was also an escape from high prices.
Unfortunately escaping Israeliness isn’t just a matter of crossing a border. Even though the Egyptian residents of Sinai profit from the year-round Israeli influx while some have forged friendships with individual Israelis over the years, given the political climate the relationship smacks of schizophrenia.
Levy points out, “it’s quite possible that among the vacationers were some who in their military service bombed civilian targets in Sinai or prevented Palestinians from receiving medical treatment in Nablus”.
Here lies the crux of the matter and the reasons why the peace between Israel and Egypt is icy with very few Egyptians ever holidaying in Tel Aviv while most Israelis remain shy of Cairo or Alexandria.
Scenes of Israelis — required to serve in the IDF and remain reservists throughout their youth and middle age — sunning themselves on the beaches of Dahab or Nuwaiba while a flick of a remote provides horrific images of Gaza where dozens of women and children have recently ended up on cold mortuary slabs as a result of Israeli firepower signal contradictory messages.
Israelis will only be able to escape their Israeliness when and if a lasting peace agreement is signed between themselves and the Palestinians.
As long as they remain as occupiers, ignoring the legitimate censure of the UN Security Council, the International Court of Justice, numerous human rights organizations while continuing to ride roughshod over Palestinian civil liberties, it stands to reason they are not going to be welcomed abroad with open arms.
Sharon may be able to tear up Oslo and “the Road map” with impunity, removing even a glimmer of hope from long-suffering Palestinian souls, but the inevitable result will be more individuals prepared to sacrifice their lives of despair and wretchedness for what they erroneously perceive as the greater good.
It is my belief that both Israelis and Arabs are victims if only they knew it. A weary Egyptian lt. colonel based in Suez encapsulated the real problem in a nutshell the other day. He told me that the real culprits of the carnage in Taba are “Bush and Blair”.
Considering Suez was decimated by Israel with only a few British-built houses left to attest to its former glory among a sea of cheaply built and garish high-rise, his analysis was detached and even profound.
Indeed, the hegemonic policies of the US and Britain in the region, based on the latter’s traditional “divide and rule” rational have contributed to the growing chasm between Arabs and Israelis.
Since George W. Bush took power, he has done nothing but pay lip service to the worsening situation in Palestine. He has talked the two-state talk but failed to walk the walk. Unlike his predecessor Bill Clinton, his policy has been one of aloofness and disengagement, permitting Ariel Sharon to do his worst in the West Bank and Gaza under the pretext of combating terror.
Should John Kerry win the upcoming election, the US looks set to stay on its Israel-biased course. During the recent debates, neither the incumbent nor the contender mentioned the Palestinians other than in a negative vein, while Israel’s security was given top priority.
Playing verbal good cop to Bush’s bad cop is Tony Blair just as he did in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But few are falling for it nowadays.
As long as Israel is identified so closely with America’s policies and uses weapons against Arabs marked “Made in the USA”, it will bear the brunt of a hostile region, likely to become even more hostile as long as Syria and Iran remain in Bush’s sights.
And while Israelis stick to their “never trust an Arab even when he’s dead” philosophy — a saying which arose as a result of Egyptians playing dead on the battlefield during the 1967 War — preferring to throw in their lot with Uncle Sam, the Middle East’s future remains uncertain.
Israel’s nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry is of no use against the human bomber, whereas a prolonged “hearts and minds” policy has a chance of succeeding.
Levy writes that Sinai “became the last meeting place between Arabs and Jews where violence and racism didn’t reign”. He talks of emotional scenes of reunion between Israeli and Egyptian youngsters. Indeed, Sinai before the bombings was a microcosm of what true peace in the Middle East could mean for both sides.
As things stand, Sinai is the loser. Hundreds of thousands of would-be visitors will stay away.
Their Egyptian hosts look forward to a bleak winter season through no fault of their own, while the rest of the country shores up its security, and prays its pivotal tourism industry will not suffer in the way it did after terrorist attacks in 1997.
In the meantime, the blame game continues. I’ve spoken to numerous Cairenes who sincerely believe the Israelis did it in order to cripple the country’s economy. Israelis variously believe Al-Qaeda or Hamas were responsible.
Pundits point fingers at Egyptian anti-government extremist groups. Egypt has arrested Bedouin miners for allegedly supplying the explosives and hints the bombers arrived by speed launch.
At the end of the day the carnage wrought is yet another symptom of a deadly and burgeoning disease that nobody in Washington is prepared to discuss let alone tackle at its roots. It is Washington, which holds the key to Middle East peace and it is Washington that should ultimately be blamed for its absence.
— Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback at [email protected]
