Mubarak on the Gaza question

This is the English-language version of an interview conducted on January 30th with Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak by two correspondents from Italy’s La Repubblica. A very well-informed person tells me it’s a good representation of what is known of Mubarak’s views. (Hat-tip to that person.)
Here is how it starts:

“Listen to me carefully.” The Egyptian leader’s voice rose: “Gaza is not part of Egypt, nor will it ever be a part of Egypt.” Then he got tough: “I hear talk of a proposal to turn the Strip into an extension of the Sinai peninsula, of offloading responsibility for it onto Egypt, but what I say to Israel is this: Its plan is nothing but a dream, and I would add that I do not accept faits accomplis…
“Some people in Israel are talking about creating an ‘expanded’ Gaza Strip, building a part of the Sinai peninsula into it via a trade in land between Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinians. Well, my answer is this: Let them trade in shoes and clothes but not in land, truly not in land.”

That part certainly rings very true. Mubarak’s political patron, Pres. Anwar Sadat, was extremely proud of the fact that in the Camp David negotiations of 1978 he managed to win Israel’s agreement to withdraw its forces from all of the Egyptian territory occupied in 1967. It’s quite clear that Mubarak would not easily agree to any non-Egyptian party infringing on Egypt’s sovereignty now. (The concept of Egyptian sovereignty goes back, um, around 7,000 years or so.)
The whole text of the interview is fascinating. Here are some more highlights:

[Mubarak] …The strangulation of Gaza that Israel has put in place to try to weaken Hamas has produced a contrary effect. Hamas has been strengthened by it. There you have it, that is Israel’s big mistake.

I note that the great Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery has described Olmert’s attempt to strangle Gaza’s population in very similar terms, as “worse than a war crime– a blunder.”
Back to the interview:

[La Repubblica] What are the consequences for Egypt? Is proximity with an area under Islamist control a threat to your country’s security?
[Mubarak] What happened in Gaza last June is important for us in terms of the implications that it has for the Palestinian people. Where Egypt’s national security is concerned, we are perfectly capable of defending ourselves. We are deeply aware of the suffering in Gaza, and sure enough, I have called on Israel to resume supplies to the Strip. We, for our part, are sending food and medical supplies from Egypt. But I will not allow new crises to be fomented at the Rafah border crossing, or a hail of stones to be thrown at the Egyptian security forces. Nor, I repeat, will I allow Israel, the occupying power, to offload its responsibilities towards Gaza, which is an occupied territory.
[La Repubblica] President Bush came to the Middle East as a peace broker. Can he play a role in defusing the crisis?
[Mubarak] A peace broker? I would not call him that…

Now, that is really something, from a guy considered to be a lynchpin of US diplomatic/strategic policy in the Middle East! Earth to Condi! Maybe you should pay some heed to what the Arab allies on whom Washington’s Middle East policy is so dependent think about your peace diplomacy?
Mubarak continues, about Bush:

Of course, he came here to promote an accord, to assess the results of the Annapolis summit, in an attempt to implement his personal vision of two states. But from the United States I hear it being said and repeated that he is not going to intervene in the negotiations on the final issues, which are the most sensitive ones. It is almost as though he had forgotten the lesson of Camp David: President Al- Sadat and Prime Minister Begin would never have achieved an accord if Carter had not spurred them on.

A little later, this:

[La Repubblica] There is an additional problem, which some people call Iran’s interference in Middle Eastern affairs. Did Bush ask you to forge a common front against Tehran?
[Mubarak] This is not the time for resorting to threats or to the use of force: That would serve solely to set the Gulf, the Middle East, and the whole world on fire. What is needed, rather, are dialogue and diplomacy. The US intelligence report on Iran’s nuclear ambitions lends itself to opposing interpretations, but in any case it paves the way for diplomacy. Greater transparency is needed on Iran’s part, and greater flexibility is needed on the part of the international community.
[La Repubblica] Yet Egypt has now chosen to move down the path of nuclear energy. Is that, too, a reaction to Iran’s programme?
[Mubarak] No, it is not. It is for purely economic reasons…
[La Repubblica] We have recently seen the Arab countries making overtures towards Iran. People are talking about the resumption of diplomatic ties between Egypt and Tehran after fully 30 years. Is it going to happen?
[Mubarak] Our contacts with Iran are ongoing despite Tehran’s breaking off ties back in 1979, after Egypt made peace with Israel. There are various issues on the table, but once they have been resolved, we are prepared to establish diplomatic relations once again.
[La Repubblica] Does that mean that Iran’s influence today is a reality that the world needs to take into account?
[Mubarak] I would prefer not to talk of influence so much as of the role and contribution of the countries in the region to peace, to security, and to stability. Iran is one of the most important countries in the region. It can play a positive and constructive role in the stability of the Gulf and of the Middle East. [Mubarak ends]

At the end of the interview, the authors note that, “Outside the door, the mirrors reflected the profile of the region’s new leading players: A composed and unruffled Iranian delegation stood waiting.”
Well, that interview was conducted ten days ago, and a lot has happened since. In the interview, Mubarak told the reporters that the border with Rafah would be closed “today”– yet it took his security people a further four days to close it; and even then, they were only able to do so with the help of Hamas.
The Egyptian authorities also made some quite heavy-handed attempts to mount a (dis-)information campaign against Hamas, with some writers even calling it something like an “Israeli fifth column” in the region. I’m not sure if that information campaign is still continuing?
The government has also continued its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood, arresting numerous MB organizers around the country.
And security chief Omar Suleiman– sometimes also mentioned as a possible political successor to the ageing Mubarak– has reportedly been in Israel trying to work out a solution to the Gaza issue.
Such a solution, to work, probably needs to include these elements:

1. A ceasefire between Israel and at the very least Gaza, but preferably also one that covers the West Bank as well.
2. A solution to the question of Gaza’s economic links– one that definitely does not include Gaza remaining shackled under Israel’s ever-tightening siege, and one that preferably also allows considerably more freedom of movement within the West Bank, and between the WB and East Jerusalem.
3. A prisoner release/exchange that is actually implemented (as opposed to the many in the past that have been concluded but not implemented by Israel.)
4. Agreement on a Fateh-Hamas working arrangement.

A tall order? Yes. If Suleiman can pull this one off, maybe he deserves to be president of Egypt!