When they say that the war in our region is bad for tourism, they don’t mean the Intifada’s negative effect on India. And still, for over a year, there are some officials in the Prime Minister’s Office in New Delhi who are waiting for a phone call from Tel Aviv, waiting for travel author Dr. Ihab el-Sharif to say that he has completed the introduction to his book on India. Thus he will complete his work, more than two years after the Indian government supplied him with a private plane to travel the length and breadth of the country and to document his impressions for the Arabic reader.

The problem is that the good doctor is also a full-time diplomat, today serving as Egypt’s most senior representative in Israel. The eruption of the Intifada and his boss’ recall have burdened him with tasks that delay his writing introductory chapters to travel books.

“Since Mohammed Bassiouny left, I haven’t had a free minute,” Ihab el-Sharif complains. “I can’t just sit down and write. I need to be inspired and in the proper mood. Today I’m busy writing political reports.”

El-Sharif, 47, who has been here over two years, is energetic and thirsty to learn about Israeli society as well as matters he does not need for his diplomatic work. In a first interview to an Israeli newspaper, the head of the Egyptian delegation has words of appreciation for Ariel Sharon, reveals some of the details about working with Bassiouny and speaks openly of the hostility toward Egypt in the Israeli street.

He elegantly sidesteps sensitive questions such as that of Azzam Azzam and the acerbic language of the Egyptian press, but on the other hand also provides a look at Israel as it appears from the closed Egyptian compound on Basel Street in Tel Aviv.

The interview with Dr. el-Sharif is a rare display of openness for Egyptian diplomats, who usually speak in repetitive slogans. After years of getting the cold shoulder from Cairo, a senior Egyptian comes along and speaks to the Israeli street in its own language.

His cooperation with the media can be explained mainly by his open personality, but also by the new strategy of his employers. After 18 years of chill winds from Bassiouny, Egypt apparently came to realize that it would be beneficial for the Egyptian administration if their senior delegate spoke directly to the people in Israel. Osama el-Baz epitomized this well. “There is a public opinion in Israel and we must open its eyes in several matters” he told the Arabic-language newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat, last week. El-Sharif is indeed full of statements and declarations, but no chance remark will escape his lips. He demands that if we quote him mentioning Syria and Israel, that Syria not be mentioned second, and if quoted using the sacred name “Mubarak,” that we not forget to preface it with the title “President.”

Question: What impressed you most about Israelis? “Israel has a reputation in Arab states of having great capabilities, but when you come here you see that a lot of it is for show. You speak a lot of your superiority as a condition for preserving your security.

That’s a big mistake. The Mossad and GSS make three-four elite operations a year to impress the world, but that doesn’t cover up for its mistakes. We are full of mistakes, you are full of mistakes. I find nothing to make me feel inferior to you. I’m not saying I’m better, but don’t give me the impression that you are better.”

Question: You thought we were superman before you came?

“I had a more perfect image of Israelis. Of people who did not have the privilege of making mistakes, so they invested more in perfection. After two years I must say that you are normal people, just like the Egyptians and Syrians. Along with that, I am very appreciative of the fact that your leaders do not stand on formality, like ties for examples. This says they are very practical people.”

Question: We say that a lack of prudence leads to negligence. That is what apparently what led to Israel’s biggest fiasco, that we were surprised in 1973.

“The same culture prevailed in 1967. I wonder if this is a Jewish legacy or American influence, I still don’t know.”

Question: Speaking of the 1973 war, many of us don’t understand why Egypt claims victory. After all, Sinai remained in Israel’s hands and you lost 10,000 soldiers.

“The results of war are not measured by what you gain in battle. The determining factor is ultimately what you obtained in the diplomacy that accompanied the battle. From ’67 to ’73 we tried vainly to get Sinai back and never received an affirmative answer. The end of the war was the return of Sinai and Taba. That was a victory. And don’t say that you would have signed a peace agreement without a war.”

Among Ihab el-Sharif’s acquaintances are Likud members, left wing activists, secular people, Haredim, Christians and Moslems. He did not hesitate to go to Ghajar after a resident he did not know phoned and invited him; another time he took a trip to Halutza, after it was mentioned as possibly being swapped with the Palestinians (“a piece of desert I wouldn’t take even if you paid me 10,000 dollars”). The Israelis he admires most are Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, Ron Pundak and deputy foreign minister Michael Melchior, whom he recently met.

He says he recently enjoyed attending a Jewish wedding in Jerusalem and expressed an interest in watching a circumcision ceremony. “I don’t believe there is any sector in Israel closed to me, except for the radical Right, which is of course not my fault. I even have good ties with army generals. They treat me very nicely.”

Question: The average Israeli dislikes Egypt, sometimes to the point of hostility. Do you feel this?

“Rarely, but it’s true. I don’t expect to be welcomed with open arms. After all, we have a history of problems.”

Question: Have you encountered any unpleasantness?

“I went to buy a radio on Ibn Gvirol Street in Tel Aviv. The salesman was a very nice guy. He gave me all the details I needed. In general, you Jews are good salesmen. At the end he asked me where I was from. I replied and in an instant, his attitude changed. As if he was facing a monster. He took two or three steps back, and it looked as if he couldn’t understand how it was he was even talking to me. I think the press plays a destructive role and makes people like him recoil from me the way he did.” Official Egypt has not yet calmed down from Avigdor Lieberman’s election statements, who spoke of bombing the Aswan dam if Egypt advanced forces in Sinai. Many Egyptians have since said often that the “defeat of 1967 will not be repeated.”

“A general has the right to speak of bombardments, but not a tourism or infrastructure minister,’ el-Sharif says. “If I were Lieberman or Ze’evi, I would ask the Egyptian embassy for a visa, go to Sinai and find a few answers to do something for tourism. For 20 years the Egyptians made Sinai a peaceful area drawing millions of tourists. Why do you think you have nothing to learn from us? Again it’s your sense of superiority. Instead of learning, you threaten us with bombing the dam.”

Question: How did you perceive Israel as a child?

“It was the enemy, the reason for all our economic and social ills. I was raised on the dream of Arab unity, which is, incidentally, our right, just as is American or European unity. It was Israel who got in the way and was stuck in the middle of our territorial contiguity.”

Question: Is it different today?

“Yes, because there is a reality that must be accepted. There is no reason to continue the state of war. But Arab unity has remained a dream.”

Question: From here it sometimes looks like your ideas of peace are not different essentially than those of your childhood.

“You look at the Egyptian press and say to yourselves, look, they’re raising their children to hate, but you don’t hear remarks like those of Avigdor Lieberman and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. To a large degree, the Egyptian press is a reaction to your statements. I am sorry that you only see what it is written there and not the root of the matter on your part.”

El-Sharif has a Ph.D. from the Sorbonne, is an expert in political Islam, and a travel writer, who also did the photography for his four books. His pride is “Germany Today,” a travel book that two years ago won him a prize from the German government.

Question: Why is there such frequent use of Nazi symbols against Israel?

“This is a very complicated issue. There are certain people in Egypt who don’t understand exactly what happened there. They only know that it infuriates the Israelis. If people in Arab countries have no respect for the victims of the Holocaust, it’s not because of denial, but because they have no idea of the dimensions. They wants to aggravate the Israelis and know that if they draw Peres in Nazi uniform, they’ll achieve that.”

Question: In other words, it’s a matter of education.

“Correct. And it will take time. You can’t ask a simple man in the street in Asyut or Aleppo or Akaba to understand history the way intellectuals understand it. Europeans know about the Holocaust because they were responsible for it, but for us, it was certainly not our responsibility.”

Question: Why don’t Egyptian intellectuals or leaders not go to their people and say, “leave out the Holocaust.”

“We have a free press, it began back in Sadat’s time, and every day there is some sort of exaggerated statement or another.”

Question: You claim to have a free press, but in the last two years you’ve closed two newspapers because they crossed a political red line.

“Every regime has red lines, more or less. You outlawed the Kach movement and you would obviously not let neo-Nazis be active among Israeli Arabs. Don’t forget the issue of MKs Azmi Bishara and Assam Mahoul.”

Question: But your silence is encouragement.

“The government cannot take steps against a newspaper for anti-Israeli ads in such a difficult times. Everyday people see on television horrible acts against the Palestinians. If a journalist who attacked the Holocaust were arrested, he’d say: ‘Look what goes on in the territories, am I to blame? Go take action against those who are killing Palestinians.” […]

Question: Is there any possibility that Azzam Azzam will be released in exchange for Egyptian security prisoners in Israeli prisons?

“Israel must be the one to raise this proposal, not us. So far it hasn’t. If it does, I will relay it to Cairo. The impression in Israel, that we are not fair and that we fabricated the Azzam Azzam issue, is completely erroneous. I’m not at all certain that Azzam did not commit what he is accused of. After all, he is a regular person, not a senior public figure. Egypt has no reason to accuse a simple Israeli Druze citizen, unless he actually did what he is said to have done.” […]

Mohammed Bassiouny’s recall in November was one of the lowest points in Israel’s relations with Egypt. Symbolically, this was a blow to Israel, but the Egyptians too lost a precious asset. In his quiet way, Bassiouny, from his home in Herzliya Pituah and his office in Tel Aviv, developed a web of contacts built up in 18 years that made him an Egyptian expert on Israel.

Since his recall, Dr. el-Sharif heads the Egyptian delegation. He does the ambassador’s work, just without the title. Most of his work is meeting with different Israelis, a lot of them Israeli Arabs. Every day he sends a report to Cairo on what he’s learned. “The meetings are not just collecting information, but building trust and mutual appreciation,” he says.” […]

Question: Do you believe there will be an ambassador here in the next few months?

“Am ambassador could arrive within two weeks. You must withdraw your army from the illegal positions it has seized, renew the peace process and violence between the two sides must stop.”

Of life in Bassiouny’s shadow, el-Sharif says: “I was number two to an ambassador who never had a number two. No one but him had any contact with Israelis, since the Israelis always said ‘only Bassiouny.’ No one knows that every day we had team meetings of three to five hours. Every day. He never hid a thing from the team. Every word he sent to Cairo, he showed me. After every important meeting we’d meet and he’d update us on the details. That is why, 24 hours after he left, I could take matters into my hands without feeling lost. For ten months I was with him every moment.”

El-Sharif was born in Cairo to a family originally from the Asyut area. His father was a deputy minister and still writes and translates at age 87. He is married to Asma, who lives with him in Ramat Aviv. Their two daughters, one’s who finished high school and the other, aged five, remain in Cairo.

He has a Masters degree from Paris University, where he specialized in the Iranian revolution. In addition to his doctorate, he has a French degree in public administration, a diploma in crisis management from Upsala University in Sweden and another diploma in diplomacy from Paris University. He was second secretary in Damascus in 1994.

“I am one of the few here who’ve had the chance to be here and there [Syria],” he says. “Among both sides I had the same feeling: great curiosity to know what’s on the other side. Both sides find it mysterious.

It’s important for you to know that the distance is not as great as you think. The gap between Syria and Israel is smaller than that between Israel and the Palestinians.”

Question: So where is the problem?

“You have to understand the Syrian mentality. It’s not a question of negotiations. Their land is conquered and they want back exactly what they lost. What do you prefer, to keep the Golan by force and continue with the policy of closed borders, or understand that Israel will be stronger without the Golan, thanks to its relations with Syria?”

Question: How would it benefit Israel to have peace with Syria?

“It is nine time larger than Israel so it has a lot to give you. Water, for example. Or the option of a land passage to Europe. Believe me, they don’t want to destroy the State of Israel. That was a slogan for many in the past who are gone today. On the other hand, you won’t have an instant love story. We have a problem with extremists on one side and dreamers on the other. I am not referring to Shimon Peres, who is a practical man.” […]

Question: If you had information that the Hamas agents who were killed at the Nablus headquarters were planning a terror attack, what would you have done in Sharon’s place?

“The question is whether you are a civilized country or not. Are you an underground or a guerrilla, or a state of institutions and laws? The moment you are a state, and of course you are, the responsibility is on your shoulders. You must not be like those organizations. No judge in the world would find it acceptable that an army with a chief of staff and a defense minister and a government decides to kill people on the basis of secret GSS reports. For a country, that is not sufficient proof.”

Question: What’s the solution?

“First, to realize that killing these people may placate Sharon supporters, but is a bad recipe for shaping your image. In my opinion, the tactical answer is responsible restraint and true enforcement using security means. If someone gets through all the barriers with a bomb, that means the means are insufficient. If these people are guilty, you must arrest them, bring them to trial and furnish proof. They are still not a state yet. Your approach is that of a war of gangs. For that reason the international community does not support you.”

Question: What should the Palestinians do?

“I’m not suggesting that they carry out terror attacks and I don’t think Arafat is pushing for that. But these area acts by people who’ve lost hope.”

Question: What should Arafat do?

“Return to negotiations. The problem is that the other side needs help.

He has no promises from your side. If you don’t give him the tools, he cannot demand of anyone to lay down their arms. Sharon accedes to his extremists, and he is a head of state. Why should Arafat not have the same right? You’re asking him for the impossible. He has to make a 100% effort, but he cannot ensure 100% results. And if you expect this of him, you will have a new Greek tragedy here.”

Question: Is a solution within reach?

“Absolutely. It’s not a dream. We are not lacking people of courage, people who made decisions like Begin and Sadat.”

Question: What is Egypt’s red line that it won’t be able to ignore in the present conflict?

“I have no idea. That is the president’s decision and I am here to follow his orders.”

Question: Are you optimistic?

“Yes, certainly. I’ve met regular people from the most distant villages in various countries. I’ve seen coins from all sides, not by sitting in offices behind a guard. And I say there is good foundation for being optimistic. That is the spirit of the Sorbonne.”

This interview ran in Maariv on August 24, 2001

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR