Fighting Israel is Hamas’ right

Interview / H.E. M. Ahmed Higazy

Asif Syed | New Delhi | 2 February 2009 |

While best known for its pyramids and ancient civilisations, Egypt has played a central role in Middle East politics in modern times. Its three wars with Israel in 1948, 1967 and 1973, then its eventual peace with its adversary in 1979, have seen Egypt move from being a warring nation to become a key representative in the peace process. But the historic step taken by President Anwar Sadat in the Camp David agreement with Israel saw the expulsion of Egypt from the Arab League until 1989, and in 1981 Sadat was assassinated by Islamic extremists angry at his moves to clamp down on their activities. Since then, President Hosni Mubarak has taken a more moderate line. Asif Syed & Renu Malhotra speak with Egypt’s Ambassador in New Delhi, HE Mohamed Ahmed Higazy, on Israel’s brutal attack against Palestinians in Gaza and Egypt’s role in the Middle East. Excerpts:

Current: Did you anticipate this attack on Gaza?
Higazy: The danger was looming after the truce expired between Israel and Hamas. We exerted enormous pressure to convince the parties to renew the truce. We called upon the foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, of Israel to visit Egypt. We spoke to her in a clear language that the attack will lead Israel nowhere. It will only complicate the situation and add to the misery of both sides. The Egyptian administration was keen to get the truce renewed which, it was convinced, would give chance for the region to stabilize because the Israelis were threatening to resort to force against the provocative gestures of Hamas.

Israel went to war because Hamas rejected the renewal of the existing truce. Do you think this rejection precipitated the Israeli attack?
Rejection of the renewal of truce does not mean that you go into war. It means that we need more diplomacy to bring both parties to an agreement – a common ground. And this is exactly what we were explaining to Hamas. We were pressuring them, talking to them to renew the truce. We were taking their demands further to Israelis. And we were talking to the Israelis to give dialogue and stability a chance. And even if there were some provocations by the Hamas, the immediate and out proportionate response by the Israelis was not welcomed by anybody.

Why do you think Hamas rejected the truce?
Hamas was elected after democratic election in Palestine and they were in a Government that was blockaded and harassed from all quarters and the international community was in denial. The International community should have lead the democratically elected Hamas government to a more political path and lead the change by welcoming Hamas’s engagement in the political scene in Palestine. After the truce, they began to feel that they had been suffering the blockade and Israeli attacks on an everyday basis.

Hamas came to power in a democratic election. The very people, the EU, the US, who were insisting on a democratic election, denied the outcome of the election that is Hamas coming to power. What does that say about their democratic credentials?
From the Palestinian point of view, the Palestinian Authority led by President Mahmoud Abbas held a democratic election that had been long demanded by the international community. The election was free and fair, a clear election praised by all, even the United Nations. The international community should have accepted the outcome of the will of the people. We call it a democracy and then we are against the result of democracy – this is not right.

People in the region feel that Israel is able to do what it does because of American support. It seems the timing of attack on Gaza was about Israel taking advantage of the vacuum caused by the transition from the Bush to the Obama administration. Elections were also coming up in Israel and the Palestine elections were scheduled for January 9. Do you think the attack is a sign that Israel is trying to push the envelope further to see how far it can go with or without America support?
The attack by Israel was with the complete knowledge and support of the previous American administration. And definitely Israel wanted to make it happen during the Bush administration which gave Israel unwavering support even in the Security Council. All countries were

supporting the cease-fire and the US abstained. We were all calling for cease-fire for stopping the carnage except the US and that is clear manifestation of the support of the Bush government to Israel.

The firing of a few hand made rockets by Hamas was a pretext used by Israel to retaliate by attacking Gaza. The situation in Israel was also in an election mood. But election campaigns should not be based and used as a way of raising one party over the other because a human being is primarily a human being, be it a Palestinian or an Israeli.

What message do you think Israel has sent to the world with its attack on Gaza?
I think whatever message Israel has sent is a message that will bring an adverse reaction. This is lack of diplomacy and resort to force is also lack of political will. War means that you have less room for peace in your mind. War means suffering and less regard to God and human beings. There was no reason for Israel wage a war for mass destruction in Gaza using prohibited weapons. I think Israel will pay a hefty price, be it political, military or even in front of the international criminal court. Fortunately or unfortunately we now live in a cyber world, we are not only read and hear about events but we also see everything as it happens. And everything is on record internationally. From the streets of Israel, to the streets of Paris, London, all over, the facts of the war were seen and recorded.

There is a view that the Israeli attack on Gaza has – after many years – reignited the Palestinian issue as an Arab cause across the region and therefore the divisions between the different Arab states on this issue are being highlighted, e.g. Syria and Qatar on one side and Egypt and Saudi Arabia (both of whom boycotted the Jan. 16 Doha summit) on the other. In what way has the Israeli attack polarised opinion amongst the Arab states?
Generally speaking, division is always harmful. Egypt believes that reconciliation between Arab factions – the Hamas and the Fatah is essential for a stronger Palestine that will face Israel. Divisions between the Arab states will not help the Palestine cause and the Arab world. We are working hard to bring about a meaningful Arab dialogue and unity. This is not an easy task because there are enemies that are using collateral force against Palestinian civilians – which has definitely ignited radical feelings in the Arab world. But don’t forget, even today the Arab countries collectively support the Arab Peace Initiative. As King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has said the Arab Peace Initiative will not be left on the table for long. And it is the agreed upon common Arab strategy to call upon Israel and the international community to accept and support the initiative because it is an initiative that contains all the elements needed to establish the Palestinian State and ensure security and normalisation of the people of Palestine. It is a very well balanced strategic initiative. We are glad that President Barack Obama has identified it as an important initiative for peace in Middle East in his inaugural speech.

While the peace initiative is the most comprehensive initiative that has come out so far, there are people who say that the time for this has passed and the time for the two-nation solution is over. This reflected in the statement of Khaled Meshal who says that resistance has now gained legitimacy and that now they don’t want to compromise. Countries of the region are divied, there are those who are in support of resistance and those who are in favour of a compromise with Israel. Please comment.
Firstly the two-nation solution will remain the agreed upon option among the Arab countries as per the Arab peace initiative. It is also a solution engaged by the quartet (United States, Russia, European Union and the United Nations) and the international community at large. It is not only the requirement of the regional and international community but also it is a requisite and a traditional security issue for Palestinians which meets their ultimate goal and national aspirations. The two-nation solution will create a Palestinian state that will exist side by side with Israel. One state solution will mean Palestinians in 2020 will over exceed the Israelis in numbers. The existence of an independent Palestinian state is also in favour of the national interest of Israel.

Secondly, the resistance of the occupier is not the invention of Hamas. The resistance of the occupier, that is Israel, has been granted by the international law and by the UN charter. That is fighting off the occupier is a right that exists with the occupied people. Also the UN convention for the rights of the civilian population in 1949, guarantees the right of the people under occupation and makes the responsibilities of the occupier, in this case Israel, clear to respect these rights. The right of resistance is not an exclusive right of Hamas, historically Palestinians have fought to create their independent state with the knowledge and recognition of the international community. Fatah was the first one to further the resistance with peaceful means with great effect. The resistance is a political discussion and it is a right that can never be taken from you. You can give the political process time, merit and see if it is giving results or not. This is actually the call for Hamas to engage in the political process.

Do you think the Israelis and the Americans will ever reconcile to the idea of Hamas being engaged in the political process?
I think Hamas’ engagement in the political process will help to reach a national reconciliation government. As our Foreign Affairs Minister puts it that if Egypt can bring both the parties together that is Hamas and Fatah, in a reconciliation government, this government has to be accepted and not boycotted as before.

Do you think Israel was able to achieve its desired goal by attacking Gaza?
The extreme use of force by the Israelis in Gaza and the huge causalities and the disproportionate use of force during the war is a sign of weakness. When the organised army of Israel whose might is sixth in the world attacks Hamas which is just a fraction of the Palestinian population it is shameful. Hamas, was only exercising their right of resistance which you might agree or not, given their particular geo-political situation, was justifiable.

What message is sent by closing of the border of Rafah between Egypt and Palestine to the Palestinians and the world at large?
The Rafah Border crossing was opened since the beginning of military operations by Israel and is still open from the Egyptian side for all humanitarian purposes.

Egypt is making its utmost efforts to receive, transport and secure all international, Arabic and Egyptian assistance to Gaza Strip. The total amount of aid delivered to the Palestinian reached more than 380 tonnes since the crises started. Egypt is receiving Palestinian injured persons to get medical treatment in Egypt. There is a mobile hospital at the Egyptian side of the border to receive all injured people. Egyptian authorities permit the transfer of medical assistance, to the Rafah Border crossing. On the other hand, food cargo and bulk assistance has to cross through “Karam Abu Salem” Border crossing or El-Ouga Border Crossing.

Obama’s new peace envoy George Mitchell kicked off a Middle East tour starting with Egypt to engage rigorously in achieving peace in the region. How do you perceive this initiative of Barack Obama administration?
The nomination of a dignified diplomatic like George Mitchell has been welcomed by everyone in the Arab world. He is someone who enjoys immense credibility and respect. The need is to show objectivity and justice and this is what we all expect from the new administration which is definitely saying all the right things and we welcome its intentions.

What is the official Egyptian position on the current situation in Gaza?
Firstly, there is an urgent need for the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to reconcile – a process which is very important for Palestine’s cause and this process was begun by Egypt before the eruption of the war situation in the Gulf.

The second track taken by the Egyptian administration was the brokering for a dialogue between Hamas and Israel for six-month truce between Israel and Palestine. Before the expiry of the truce in December 2008, we called upon Hamas and Israelis to renew the truce. It was very clear that if the truce was not renewed the tensions between the two countries might erupt. So we called upon Israel and the Hamas leadership, for a dialogue so as to allow peace and the stability of the region to be maintained.

Unfortunately, the Israelis went into action and they did not listen to the advice of Egypt that excessive use of force, which we have seen, leads nowhere. This is the result of using military might over civilian population and saying that through military means you can achieve your goal. Look at the situation now in Gaza, they did not destroy Hamas.

Our aim with international partners was to stop the carnage, although there were some delaying tactics used in the Security Council our immediate goal was to stop the Israeli attack and stop civilian suffering. After the Security Council resolution and stabilising the cease-fire, we are working towards renewing the truce between Israel and Hamas.

The Egyptian initiative is to call upon two Palestinian parties to reconcile because Palestine reconciliation is essential to the future of peace initiative and the reconstruction of Gaza after the massive destruction. Egyptian initiative also includes asking the international community to contribute towards reconstruction of Gaza – which has suffered a systematic destruction of its infrastructure. Egypt also proposes to call for political pressure from international community to establish peace between the Palestinian and the Israeli leadership and move towards the ultimate solution of a two state solution – an integral viable Palestinian state composed of the West Bank and Gaza strip with East Jerusalem as its capital, living side by side with Israel. This could lead to a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, a middle east that enjoys peace, stability & prosperity and development.