Little supports the Zionist project more than the equation of Jews with Israel, as though to oppose the latter means opposing the former, writes Ashraf El-Bayoumi* In science we profess that when a theory fails to explain empirical facts, or produces incomprehensible puzzles, it is imperative to reconsider its basic assumptions, modify it, or abandon it all together in light of contradictory evidence. Applied to the political realm, this logic also requires attendance to the possibility that false assumptions are deliberately introduced to serve certain political objectives. As P Khanna observed recently, "Persistent Western misperceptions about Arabs support the false frames we use in analysing the region." The selectivity of Western reporters in seeking the views of local individuals further amplifies misperceptions and reinforces false assumptions. Michael Slackman's International Herald Tribune article of 21 March with its deceptive title ("A Synagogue's Unveiling Exposes a Conundrum") and questionable premise represents a vivid example of a constructed conundrum that is easy to solve once its assumptions are revised. In commenting on the restoration of Ibn Maimoon (Maimonides) Synagogue in Cairo, Slackman describes the event as "an extraordinary moment... as Jews and Muslims, Israelis and Egyptians... celebrated their shared heritage." Obviously, the very presence of the Ibn Maimoon Synagogue, among others, in Egypt testifies to the social harmony that existed between Jews and Muslims predating the forced creation of Israel. Furthermore, if we recall some historical facts, we immediately discover that there is nothing unique or extraordinary about such an event. Ibn Maimoon himself is a product of the shared heritage of Cordoba, Spain. He lived during an era of a flowering Islamic civilisation when he, among many others, excelled in many fields of specialisation and areas of intellectual pursuit. Thus it is safe to say that there were millions of such "extraordinary moments", not only in Andalusia but also in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world. These facts dispel the false notion of "centuries of hatred" between Jews and Arabs, or Jews and Muslims, which is incessantly propagated in the West and by Zionist Israel. Ironically, such hatred is applicable to the historic relationship between Christians and Jews in the West, the hotbed of anti-Semitism not only during the Spanish Inquisition but also through modern European history. Israel acts as a force of polarisation that serves its goals and as a justification of the horrendous crimes the Zionists commit perpetually against those "hateful" Muslims and Christians in Palestine and the Arab world. It should not escape the notice of the careful reader that Slackman couples in the same sentence, perhaps deliberately, two very distinct notions: one deals with religion -- Jews and Muslims, and the other deals with political identity -- Israelis and Egyptians. This makes it possible to create the conundrum that, "Egyptian society has struggled with since its leadership made peace with Israel three decades ago: how to balance the demands of Western capitals and a peace process that relies on Egypt to work with Israel with a public antipathy for Israel." The writer avoids any comment that would explain important questions that may arise in the minds of the readers. What does he imply by stating that the "leadership made peace with Israel"? Why didn't he explicitly state that such "peace" was made with Sadat only in the absence of any role for or discussion with the Egyptian people and that a number of foreign ministers, handpicked by Sadat himself, resigned during the Camp David negotiations? A statement of the fact that the treaty was imposed by a non-elected leader, Sadat, who was glorified by the "democratic" West as their hero, would dispel a good part of the contrived riddle. As to the mystery of "public antipathy for Israel", that also could be dispelled if Slackman mentioned that the mass killings in Gaza and the spectacle of missiles, phosphorous and DIME bombs, all supplied by the US, is still fresh in the mind of the Egyptian people. As a matter of fact their anger extends to their government's role during the Israeli "Operation Cast Lead" in Gaza. All of this further exposes the quality of Sadat's "peace" with Israel. What does the author mean when he refers to "demands of Western capitals" and why does the Egyptian government find itself trying to satisfy contradictory demands? If one assumes that the current Egyptian government follows the dictates of the US government and that it does not represent the will and aspirations of its people and lacks the support of the majority of Egyptians who vehemently oppose Israel, the puzzle finally collapses. Moreover, the implication of this for the future of imposed "peace" that formalises injustice is very clear. This also puts in great doubt the ingenuity of Western powers in "bringing democracy" to the Arab world. During the Nasser era, Egyptians were accustomed to making a clear distinction between Jews and Zionists. That distinction is now blurred and opposition or even criticism of Israel is conveniently equated with hatred for the Jews and falls in the category of anti-Semitism! Webster's Dictionary (the revised edition) defines anti- Semitism as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the State of Israel". Obama has been recently added to that category. It is indeed ironic that some of those who are in fact anti-Jewish support Israel. Nixon's documented position is a case in point. In his secret recently revealed tapes he curses the Jews while supporting and helping Israel as a tool of imperialism. Similarly, among Arab "normalisers" there are those who hate Jews while collaborating with Zionist Israel. There is no confusion or doubt deep or otherwise in the mind of most Egyptians who unequivocally oppose relations with Israel. This widespread opposition is certainly not a question of "appetite". In this regard, the use of the word "normalisation" itself is an arrogant attempt to confuse submission to settler colonialism with establishing a normal relationship. Is the submission to land expropriation, occupation and racist Apartheid "normal"? Israel's assumed role as a spokesman for all Jews in the world regardless of their nationality is itself a potent destructive polarising force and a cause for instability and wars as polls in Europe clearly demonstrate. * The writer is an Egyptian political activist and former director of the observation unit of the World Food Programme in Iraq.
