This article represents a section of my capstone paper entitled: At Least Mubarak Kept Us Safe. Both of these writings are a culmination of three months of research in Egypt studying politicized Islam and life after the Arab Spring.

1. BRANDEIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL APRIL 2014
A
n Israeli student asked me a
question that has since stayed
with me. He asked, “I can un-
derstand Palestinians having a prob-
lem with Israel; there is an occupation
going on. But what I don’t understand
is why Egyptians hate Israel so much.
There is supposed to be peace between
the two countries. Why do Egyptians
still view Israel this way?” I started to
answer, and found I did not have an
answer immediately. Upon further re-
flection, I believe the answer lies in the
Egyptian idea of Israel as unforgiving,
and a country that does not hesitate to
kill. The answer also lies in each coun-
try’s media portrayal of the other, as
well as in much of their political rheto-
ric: the Israeli is portrayed as a violent
Zionist, and Egyptian as the oppressive
Muslim. My experience of speaking to
Egyptians about possibilities for peace
between the two countries, as well
as in the region as a whole, revealed
a seemingly immoveable distrust of
Israel. There was, unfortunately, a lack
of a vision of Israelis as parents, chil-
dren, teachers, and humans just like
us. In some ways, this is a form of self-
defense (a prominent characteristic of
Israel’s government, perhaps the two
countries should bond more deeply
over this). This lack of interest in
peace – in addition to being an age-old
characteristic of Egypt – is the flipside
of focusing on Egyptian nationalism.
Egyptians are focused on solving the
current lack of government and digni-
fied living. The political rhetoric in
Egypt addresses this need, the need for
Egyptians to feel unified, often at the
expense of “other”-ing Israel.
A Cold Peace:
The Future of
Egyptian-Israeli
Relations
By Rawda Aljawhary
Middle East
20

2. BRANDEIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL APRIL 2014
The political rhetoric in Egypt
--the statements of politicians, candi-
dates, and newspapers – reveals pre-
conceptions about the Egyptian-Israeli
dichotomy. For example, Mohamed
Elbaradei, a prominent politician and
voice of reason in post-Morsi politics,
stated about Egypt-Gaza barrier: Gaza
is “a brand of shame on the forehead
of every Arab, every Egyptian and
every human being.” In a report from
the United Press International agency,
Elbaradei also states that the fence be-
tween Egypt and Gaza “hurts Egypt’s
reputation... It appears to be participa-
tion in the siege of Gaza, which has
become the world’s largest prison...
The logical solution to the problem
would be to close the tunnels and open
border crossings while creating a free
trade zone in Rafah where Palestinians
can trade and then return to Gaza.”i
He is the opposite of past president
Morsi and Netanyahu’s governments,
which operate on the premises that the
blockade of Gaza is needed to ensure
security. He called on the Egyptian and
Israeli governments to end the block-
ade. Stuart Reid, a journalist from the
New Republic Review, calls Elbaradei’s
thinking “distinctly Viennese: multi-
lateral, anti-hegemonic, legalistic. He
believes global problems like nuclear
proliferation are best solved collec-
tively, and that unilateral measures are
anachronistic... All of this, of course,
should play well in Egypt.”ii
Though the man from
Vienna is overall “anti-hegemonic
and legalistic,”iii
Elbaradei judges
Israel harshly, stating it is “the num-
ber one threat to the Middle East”
as it only “understands the language
of violence.”iv
He justifies Fatah and
Hamas’s use of violence as the only
means of being heard while under a
brutal occupation.v
His views reflect
those of many Egyptians, and it is this
view, in part, which keeps the peace
with Israel cold. In an interview with
University of Alexandria student,
Marwa Elgohary, she relates the story
of her uncle Ashraf’s death at a young
age. She and her family believe he
died while playing with a ball that
exploded because it was sold with a
bomb inside of it. She states that this
explosion also injured several children
playing with him in the village of Kafr
Essam, Egypt. Her family, along with
many Egyptians, believes Israel sold
such toys to Egypt.vi
These and similar
statements are common among Egyp-
tians, fueling a deep-seated mistrust
of Israel. These stories encourage the
belief that an Arab in Israel must use
violence in order to be heard.vii
Despite
the open mind, deep belief in Islamic
values, and worldliness of Elbaradei,
Closed seafood stand in Egypt.
Source: Bahaaldin Hassan Aljawhary
Middle East
21

3. BRANDEIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL APRIL 2014
he is unable to see Israel as anything
but an enemy; and despite the peace
treaty and Egypt’s own involvement in
the containment of Gaza, Egyptians
overall can’t see Israel as anything
other than cold-hearted.
After the Egypt-Israeli
border killings on August 18th,
2011, another prominent politician
and former presidential candidate,
Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh – who,
as a medical school student, debated
Anwar Sadat – had a less diplomatic
stance. He stated, “The Israeli enemy
must know that the Egyptian blood
is the most precious thing we have...
Israelis have to know that the Egyptian
blood is our most precious thing, and
all the treaties are not worth the ink
with which they were written if our
civilians are killed and our borders
and skies are violated.”viii
His word
choice is extremely strong, and he
clearly places Israel as an “enemy.” He
uses this opportunity to release Egypt’s
frustration about the soldiers killed at
the Egyptian-Israeli border, and he re-
minds Egyptians of their nationalism
by saying, “Egypt will not tolerate what
happened because its people will not
accept injustice of tyrants. Egyptians
who revolted for dignity and free-
dom on the glorious day, the 25th of
January, know who their enemy is and
who their friend is. They will do the
same thing against the invaders. If the
danger is threatening our civilians and
soldiers we are not tolerant because
the security of Egypt is the security of
every citizen... We will not tolerate the
violations against our borders by the
Israeli enemy under any pretext. The
enemy must understand – if it has not
yet understood-- that the revolution of
January 25th is a breaking point in the
history of our national independence.
The enemy must also know that three
Egyptian martyrs are all Egypt, and
that they shot a whole country and not
three soldiers. The blood was shed in
every Egyptian house.”
He deliberately allows
Egyptians, having been severely re-
pressed by Mubarak’s regime,ix
to feel
a sense of value by calling Egyptian
blood priceless. Mubarak’s regime
had “spread despair and the idea that
there is no solution for any problem at
any level - education, health services,
population increase, traffic, unemploy-
ment, corruption ... etc. It has[d] trans-
formed most Egyptians into an army
of despair,”x
Abul Fotouh’s statements
excite listeners with the idea that the
Egyptian is worth fighting for, con-
trary to the belief disseminated during
Mubarak’s time of the uselessness of
the Egyptian layman. To an outsider
not raised in Egyptian culture, Abul
Fotouh is stubbornly distorting the
facts of the Egyptian-Israeli border
skirmish instead of focusing on peace-
fully resolving the issue! However, it is
critical that he mentions the revolution
on January 25th and the independence
Egyptians brought about in the period
afterwards; it shows his deeply Egypt-
centered focus. Egyptians want to hear
of their worth and their achievements,
so that is what an Egyptian candidate
will tell them.
Abul Fotouh speaks like one
who went through higher education in
the Middle East; where students often
memorize the work of Arab think-
ers, and eloquence is so valued that
there are whole courses devoted to it.
Abul Fotouh uses distinctive, archaic
eloquence and often speaks in modern
standard Arabic. He uses words like
“contentment” which have a strong,
Islamic connotation; in the Islamic
tradition, there is much literature on
the contentment of the heart and the
processes leading to this contentment.
He also uses words that
resonate with Egyptians, not for
religious reasons, but nationalist ones.
He chooses the Arabic word “watan”
which is a word that means more than
country or nation. It was a word that
was closely tied to the political changes
and nationalist tendencies that devel-
oped at the end of the Ottoman Em-
pire, and intensified after its collapse.
In many countries the word came to
mean motherland or homeland, and it
has much sentimental value. It evokes
the period of independence and the
nationalism that surged across the
Middle East, changing its politics for-
ever after the collapse of the Ottoman
Empire.xi
Today the word watan holds
a strong patriotic and nationalist con-
notation in the minds of the listener.
Abul Fotouh’s creation of a nationalist
fervor within the listener also cre-
ates an extremely aggressive stance
towards the issue of Egyptian-Israeli
relations and shows his own aggressive
stance towards Israel. It is clear that
the subject of Israel raises sensitivities
within the public and the candidates
representing that public.
Egyptian citizens and politi-
cians, who continue to view Israel
The answer also lies in each country’s media por-
trayal of the other, as well as in much of their po-
litical rhetoric: the Israeli is portrayed as a violent
Zionist, and Egyptian as the oppressive Muslim.
Middle East
22

4. BRANDEIS INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL APRIL 2014
as an oppressor, will not strengthen
the economic and social ties between
the two countries unless grassroots
organizations prompt and reward this
change. When following the stories of
the people and the statements of those
who represent them, the presumed
certainties in the conversation about
Israel become clear. As deeply en-
trenched as they seem, they are in fact
changeable. We must actively change
the mentality of the rising generations.
It is a dream, and a sigh of relief, for all
of us who have a stake in this tumul-
tuous region that the Middle East
develop into a stabilized, balanced,
region. One with the trade of goods,
ideas, and culture; a region that is no
longer an arena for world super pow-
ers, though there are many difficul-
ties, a cold peace, and old barriers to
overcome.
i.“ElBaradei: Gaza, World's Largest Jail,” PressTV, Apr 14, 2010.
ii.Reid, Stuart. “The Man From Vienna.” The New Republic, May 9, 2011.
iii. Ibid.
iv. Nahmias, Roee. “Elbaradei: Israel Occupation only Understands Force.” Hadashot News. Aprile 2010.
v. Ibid.
vi. Marwa Elgohary student at the University of Alexandria in discussion with the author, August 2011.
vii. Elbaradei, Mohammed, Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times. New York: Metropolitan Books , 2012.
viii. Henache, Dalila. “Abdel Moneim Abul Fotouh Calls Upon Military Council to Expel Israeli Ambassador from Cairo.” Echorouk. 08 Aug. 2011. Ibid.
x. Alaa Bayoumi, “Why ElBaradei?,” AlJazaeera, March 9, 2010.
xi. Bernard Lewis, “Watan,”Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 26, No. 3/4, The Impact of Western Nationalisms: Essays Dedicated to Walter Z. Laqueur on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (Sep., 1991) , pp.
523-533
Rawda Aljawhary, a contributing writer to the Brandeis International Journal, is a senior at Brandeis studying sociology and
creative writing. She was born in Kafr Essam, Egypt.
Middle East
23