Anti-Israeli demonstrations are an understandable expression of the popular will, writes Assem El-Kersh On many campuses this week Israeli flags were burned as students cried out for relief for the people of Gaza and protested at the injustices of an occupation that looks set to continue indefinitely. Against the images of flag burning came the angry chant "No to normalisation!", and an outcry against the handshake exchanged between the grand imam of Al-Azhar and Israeli President Shimon Peres. Not long before the protests a court ruling that exports of natural gas to Israel should be halted had been greeted with jubilation. The same tone was struck whenever the subject of Israel arose, whether in the realm of business, political proprieties, Oriental dancing, in which Israel is attempting to compete with the Arabs on their home ground, the murky world of espionage, the culinary arts -- Israel claims falafel is its national dish -- and even in the field of chess where, two weeks ago, the Egyptian team was defeated by the Israeli team. They were compelled to compete after threats Egypt would be expelled from the International Chess Federation should they refuse. The anniversary of Anwar El-Sadat's 1977 visit to Jerusalem passed on 19 November with barely a mention. More than 30 years later reactions to Israel are as negative as ever. The reasons for this are many though they can be conveniently summed up by the simple fact that in the eyes of the vast majority of Egyptians and Arabs, including those born after the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Israel remains the stranger that appeared one day to ask for a drink of water only to consume the entire well. Once you grasp this analogy the anger and dismay at the handshake between Al-Azhar's senior official and the Israeli president on the fringes of a recent interfaith dialogue conference in New York is easily understood. Whether the handshake was forced on the grand imam by considerations of protocol or a result of the awkwardness of the situation, for many the offence caused was sufficient to merit, if not his resignation, at least an official apology. The grand imam, they argue, was not in New York representing himself or the Egyptian government, and his action represented yet another crack in the resistance to normalisation. The venerable sheikh does not see eye to eye with his critics. He has described them as crazy and refuses to offer an apology, insisting his encounter with Peres was accidental. That may be so, yet still it is difficult to understand how surprised he appears to have been by the magnitude of the furore it sparked. An official in his position, and with his experience, must surely have realised the depth of the sensitivities he would stir by shaking hands with the leader of the enemy at such an extremely tense and volatile time in the occupied territories. The protocol signed between Egypt and Israel in 2005 under which Israel imports Egyptian natural gas at a fraction of the cost on international markets provoked reactions that went beyond words. The opposition appealed to the courts and earlier this month the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the pumping of gas to Israel be stopped. The government has not only refused to implement the decision but in doing so acted so hastily that it effectively undermined its own position in ongoing negotiations with Israel to secure a fairer price. In keeping the taps on the Ministry of Petroleum may have passed up an opportunity to extricate itself from a burdensome obligation which in the opinion of the court, as well as in many public quarters, constitutes a squandering of Egypt's limited national resources. As the court judgement argued, the constitution stipulates that any agreement should have been approved by the People's Assembly which has the right to determine how we dispose of our national resources. Normalisation has become an increasingly embarrassing subject for those wishing to move in that direction. The more open the event the more awkward its potential ramifications. Such was the case a few years ago when Egypt hosted the judo world cup and faced the prospect of having to invite the Israeli team. An assistant to the grand imam of Al-Azhar issued a fatwa against competing with Israeli teams. He ruled that the participation of Israeli teams in competitions in Egypt or any other Islamic country should be prohibited on the grounds that the Israelis "assaulted our land, persons and property" and, hence, "to play with them is to signal our approval of their offences against us". At the time the media made no reference to the fatwa or to the participation of the Israeli team, whose flag was not displayed for fear of sparking protests. Even those who approve of normalisation in principle air reservations. Writer Maamoun Fendi, for example, believes that Israel should make the first move in any thaw in relations by declaring permanent borders, ending its occupation of an oppressed people and abandoning its aggressive and colonialist behaviour. Normalisation, he adds, cannot come at the instigation of the victim since that would be an implicit acceptance of the relationship between the oppressed and oppressor as being somehow normal. Supporters of normalisation who do not have such reservations inevitably produce the same, readymade argument. By boycotting Israel, they say, the Arabs are sacrificing a major pressure card. Inevitably they fail to clarify why this same pressure card has failed to prevent Israel from unleashing its military machine against the occupied territories at will, from running rampage in Lebanon or from turning Congress against Cairo, sending in drug smugglers and money forgers and recruiting spies wherever it can. It is as if Israel is determined to continue on a war footing with Egypt, albeit pursuing aggression by other means. Indeed, Israel treats its peace agreement with Egypt as though the condition were purely temporary. Tel Aviv's annual strategic assessments of the sources of threat to Israel always include Egypt. The attitude of Israeli commentator Eitan Haber is typical. He regards Israel's peace with Egypt with distaste. "The Egyptians don't like us," he says, "and -- why deny it? -- we don't like them." I do not imagine any great harm will occur if we, too, were bitten by the frankness bug and, for a change, come right out and say that Israel is still the enemy and that no matter how much we air brush and touch up reality it remains as ugly as ever after more than three decades of waiting for the mirage of peace, justice and stability to materialise. Israel is as belligerent as ever, as obstinate in its refusal to pay the costs of peace, as insensitive to the feelings of those who have tried to make peace with it. It has yet to lift a finger to improve its image or to change itself at heart. Yes, why not admit it? Anything must be better than this weak and illusory peace that underscores the old chemistry lesson adage that oil and water do not mix!
