THE recent visit paid by the Israeli Ambassador in Cairo to the office of Hala Moustafa,the editor of Democracy magazine,one of the publications of Al-Ahram press institution,has echoed widely in the cultural circles.Both those for and against the visit,which was claimed to co-ordinate efforts for a seminar on peace to be attended by Egyptian and Israeli experts,used respectable logic to substantiate their arguments.
Against an official stand governed by an Egyptian-Israeli peace pact and cooperation in certain areas,and a public one that refuses all forms of normal relations with Israel,the visit has indeed exposed a prevailing state of confusion in Egypt.This duality makes the distinction of what falls under normalisation and what does not sometimes difficult to ascertain.Accordingly, some members of the intelligentsia see that if the State itself shows some aspects of cooperation for the sake of national interests, why should individuals not follow suit within the same context?Hala Moustafa has defended her stance as one prompted by the philosophy of getting to know your enemy.Some of her colleagues, however,even in the same institution,have advocated that withholding normalisation is a significant card,which should be retained to put pressure on Israel to resolve a decades-old conflict with the Palestinians. Embattled Moustafa said that the Foreign Ministry was beforehand informed of the controversial meeting,which again exposed duality on this contentious issue.Moustafa,who will be questioned soon by the Press Syndicate for violating the ban recommended by the independent union 's general assembly on activities with Israeli representatives,personally believes that such a l6-year-old ban should be reconsidered because of subsequent changes in the political arena.The question to be posed then is:Can we really differentiate between the official and popular stands?Or should they both be promoted along the same lines whichever side they take?
