WATANI International
18 April 2010
Researcher and liberal writer Talaat Radwan investigates the complex issue of cultural normalisation with Israel and translating from the Hebrew language into Arabic
The peace treaty signed between Egypt and Israel in 1979 resulted in normal bilateral relations in various spheres. Even though the treaty never excluded cultural normalisation, any observer of the cultural sphere in Egypt is bound to notice that the issue provokes knee-jerk reactions whenever it is raised. I understand the rationale behind opposing some joint economic projects with the Hebrew State, on grounds that they may prove harmful to the Egyptian economy. However I think it is of great relevance to discuss the rationale against cultural normalisation.
Winners and losers
When the trend opposes to cultural normalisation with Israel resulting in the boycott of scientific conferences and art events in which Israelis take part, it is necessary to ask ourselves whether the boycott serves Egyptian national interests. To put it another way, there are two rival views: one requires Egyptians to have an active presence and contribution in international events, while the other insists on staying away from different forums out of a belief that a presence with the enemy, whatever the occasion, implies tacit acceptance. I believe, however, that it is possible for two foes to be present in one room, and that each can express a vision and outlook without having to recognise the other. And it is an exaggeration to say that the strategy of dealing with Israel is detrimental to Palestinian interests.
A joint study by two American pundits indicates how the Israeli lobby is capable of dominating Congress and influencing US foreign policy. In the same context, it is remarkable that whenever an Israeli assault on the Palestinians takes place, a sizeable portion of global public opinion takes the Israeli side as a result of the successful Israeli propaganda.
Reckless announcements by Muslim leaders such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said Israel should be “wiped off the map”— do much harm to the Palestinian cause. The Israelis, for their part, skilfully employ all means at hand to sow opposition to the Palestinians. The release of photographs of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, founder of the World Islamic Congress, shaking hands with Hitler in 1941 [taken out of context and with no historical background] added salt to old wounds, since leading Palestinian figures are portrayed as racist.
Intermediate languages
When the issue of translation from Hebrew into Arabic was recently raised, some commentators argued that since Egyptians had a right to read Israeli books, translations should be from an intermediate language rather than Hebrew since this would save the burden of gaining approval from Israeli publishers.
Yet this logic raises two issues. First, translation via a third language makes it probable that the text we read might not be accurate in expressing the original. Second, is contacting Israeli publishers more dangerous than forging diplomatic or economic ties? What about the US military bases scattered in Arab countries? Do not they serve the Israeli government more than cultural interaction ever could?
It is amazing that while the Israelis spare no effort in translating Arabic literature and study every single detail of Arab culture, some Arab intellectuals—particularly the Nasserites—claim that when Arab peoples read about Israeli society they will gradually grow familiar with it and, at a certain point, familiarity will breed acceptance.
Fear of knowledge
One should not overlook a crucial factor. Behind the opposition to cultural normalisation lies a fear that learning about the realities of the Israeli society might breed sympathy for Israelis. Most important among these is the fact that not all Israelis are against granting the Palestinians rights; only the fundamentalist Israelis deny Palestinians their rights.
Those who oppose cultural normalisation want to cover up facts about Israel: the presence of a democratically-elected government whose members are subject to accountability; the media’s absolute right to publish facts about corruption or financial irregularities, even when they concern the prime minister or the president; and the fact that nobody is above the law. When Ben Gurion University decided to grant former Premier Ariel Sharon an honorary doctorate, 37 professors filed an appeal in protest on the grounds that Sharon’s political choices had not drawn a consensus from the Israelis. Unlike the situation in Egypt, the incomes of ministers and top officials are not taboo subjects. The Israeli parliament even cut Binyamin Netanyahu’s salary by 5 per cent this year.
If we are to remain in ignorance of the realities about Israel, we will sustain huge losses. An Israeli group recently filed a lawsuit accusing Egypt of conniving with Hamas to smuggle weapons that killed Israeli citizens. Did the idea of filing a lawsuit against Israel for stealing Egyptian oil or historical artefacts cross the mind of any of us? Have any of us thought of filing a lawsuit against Israel because one of its satellite channels uses the Giza Pyramids on its logo?
Where did the Egyptian identity go?
Enemies’ autobiographies are sometimes of great help. Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir said in her autobiography that although Israel was an infant State, it showed persistence in preserving its identity. Egypt, she went on to say, had given up its identity despite its long history—a clear allusion to Egypt’s adoption of pan-Arabism following the 1952 Revolution.
Finally, it is of utter importance to bear in mind that opening up to all cultures of the world is the first step towards possessing the weapon of knowledge.