Sharon's tactics are tried and tested, their outcome consequently well-known, writes Ibrahim Nafie Ariel Sharon insists that Egypt must release Azam Azam, an Israeli Druze currently serving a 15 year sentence for espionage, if it expects to continue to play a part in the peace process. The Israeli prime ministers' recent statement to this effect underscores once again how warped his thinking is on questions of peace and security. Sharon, prime minister since February 2001, champions the Israeli ultra right, which holds that recourse to force is the only way Israel can realise security and compel the Arabs to reach a political settlement. This was the segment of Israeli opinion that had also believed that an Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty would neutralize Egypt as a power to be reckoned with in the Middle East conflict and the peace process. Once a treaty was concluded, they imagined, Egypt would never dare stand up against Israel's arrogance and belligerence. Of course time proved the absurdity of such illusions. Egypt has remained a bastion of support for Arab nations and peoples. Since signing the peace agreement with IsraelEgypt has repeatedly asserted its regional weight through a number of practical and symbolic measures. Examples of this are to be found in the Egyptian response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in Egypt's unstinting support for Arab parties involved in the negotiating processes initiated by the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991, and in Egypt's drive to link normalization through MENA mechanisms to progress in the peace process. A more dramatic instance occurred when, in March 2001, the Israeli government expressed its contempt for the Arab peace innitiative by launching a fullscale incursion into PA territories. In response Egypt ceased all contacts with Israel, with the exception of those communications that promoted the continuation of the peace process and the interests of the Palestinian cause. Successive Israeli governments have clearly failed to comprehend the message inherent in such actions. Moreover, in their hubris they imagined that they could undermine Egypt's resolve through various forms of pressure, such as the statement recently issued by Sharon regarding the release of Azzam. It is striking that Sharon issued this statement immediately after President Mubarak had stated that Sharon, should he summon the necessary will, was the individual best poised to conclude a peace agreement with the PA. In so saying Mubarak honed in on the crucial issue, which is that Israel's current leadership lacks the desire to pursue negotiations with the PA. Once again, too, the Israeli government missed the point of Mubarak's statement. To Egypt, it is not the role it plays that counts but rather the need to ensure that the peace process on the Palestinian track continues until the Palestinians obtain their legitimate rights in full. Sharon is also mistaken if he believes that he can define Egypt's role. Lest Sharon forget, it was Egypt that launched the October 1973 war in order to regain full sovereignty over all its national territory, and it was Egypt that opened the prospect of peace by signing a treaty with Israel in 1979. In short, the Egyptian role is pivotal. This role is determined by factors of history, geography, affiliation and principle. I also wonder if Sharon realises how much of a burden supporting his country has become for Israel's number one ally, the US. Former US President George Bush senior indicated as much when, in 1992, he refused to approve $10 billion of loan facilities to Israel when the Shamir government refused to proceed with negotiations following the Madrid conference. Apparently, the scenario is repeating itself under Bush junior. Members of the current administration have been airing their anger over the Sharon government's refusal to implement its obligations under the first phase of the roadmap and at racist remarks issued by members of the Sharon cabinet, including the statement that Palestinian detainees should be dumped into the sea. Recently the frustration has taken concrete form in a State Department proposal to halt loan facilities destined for Tel Aviv, "because of the determination of the Sharon government to proceed with the construction of the separating wall between the occupied West Bank and Israel, the first phase of which has already been completed." With regard to Azzam, who has now served seven years of his 15-year sentence, Egypt has resisted all pressure to issue an executive amnesty. As President Mubarak has said, Azzam is a spy and the judicial ruling that convicted him on this charge cannot be reversed by a political decision. I believe that the US can sympathise with Egypt's position. Washington, too, had to contend with Israeli pressure to release a convicted spy -- Jonathan Pollard, the US naval officer found guilty of transmitting naval intelligence to Israel. Undeterred by the damning evidence against Pollard Netanyahu, during the Wye River talks in 1998, pressed Clinton to allow Pollard to fly back with Netanyahu to Tel Aviv. Just before that, Cabinet Secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister Dani Naveh visited Pollard in prison and awarded him a medal and Israeli nationality. Although Clinton had indicated that he was willing to release Pollard, he was overridden by the relevant committees in Congress. This did not prevent the government of Ehud Barak, during Camp David II in July 2000, from picking up where Netanyahu had left off, even though this effort failed as well and Pollard remains behind bars in the US serving out his sentence. There is, thus, nothing new in the game Sharon is playing. Egypt, for its part, will not succumb to such pressures. If the Israeli government wants security and stability it will have to stop violating international agreements and conventions, and it will have to implement its obligations under the roadmap. This is the only avenue towards the restoration of calm, and from there to a just and comprehensive peace. Only such a peace can bring stability, security and prosperity to all peoples of the region. Anything less will merely prolong the cycle of instability and violence.
