Mapping Egyptian Translations of Israeli Literatures: Evolution,Attitudes,and Themes

The peace treaty signed between Israel and Egypt in 1979, following years of conflict and multiple wars, marked a pivotal moment in the contemporary history of the Middle East. Since then, Egyptian–Israeli relations have experienced numerous fluctuations, primarily unfolding at the strategic-diplomatic level, while grassroots relations have rarely materialized. To borrow a metaphor from sociolinguistics, the post-peace agreement relations between the two countries have been diglossic for decades, marked by a disparity between the formal and popular varieties: relations are mostly conducted in the ‘high’ variety, with collaborations persisting in official, political, and military spheres, while in the ‘low’ variety, cultural relations often remain poor. Scholars investigating the dynamics of Israeli–Egyptian relations often label them as ‘cold peace’ (al-salām al-bārid), a term coined by Egypt's former Minister of Foreign Affairs and former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ¹ which became widely accepted ² due to the absence of people-to-people normalization. ³

Several explanations are offered in the literature for this seeming dissonance. Beyond the ‘land for peace’ rationale, maintaining relations with Israel at the diplomatic-strategic level is a policy choice based on a raison d’état acknowledging Israel's military advantage and the importance of peace dividends to Egypt's economy and international status. At the popular level, however, normalization has remained largely stagnant, with the treaty being respected primarily for statist calculations and lacking ‘societal buy-in’. ⁴ This stagnation is due to a ‘psychological barrier’ steaming from historical rivalries, ⁵ the absence of a reconciliation process that fosters deep cognitive change in beliefs, ideology, and emotions toward Israel among most sectors of Egyptian society, ⁶ and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ⁷ As Yoram Meital notes, ‘continuing violence and antagonism between Israel and Arabs, mainly the Palestinians, steadily eroded the agreements’. ⁸ Similarly, Shimon Shamir points out that as long as the broader Arab–Israeli conflict, and particularly the Palestinian issue, remains unresolved, Egypt struggles to ideologically justify the peace. ⁹

Since the bilateral relations between Israel and Egypt primarily manifest at the strategic, diplomatic, and political levels – occasionally extending to cooperation in economics and agriculture – research tends to focus predominantly on these areas. The limited instances of intercultural interactions have created a noticeable void in scholarly exploration of the cultural aspects of the relations between the two states. Only a few studies have been devoted to the cultural dimension of these bilateral relations, and those are often outdated. ¹⁰ References to cultural experiences or the lack thereof are usually found in the memoirs or historical accounts of former Israeli ambassadors to Egypt, rather than in scholarly literature. ¹¹

This article aims to help bridge this gap through the distinctive perspective of translation studies, which has yet to be thoroughly explored. Mahmoud Kayyal's newly published work on mutual translations of modern Arabic and Hebrew Literatures from the end of the nineteenth century to the present contributes to our understanding of this phenomenon in Egypt. However, Kayyal focuses mainly on partial translations of belletristic works scattered in academic research on Israeli literature within Egyptian universities until the turn of the millennium, while neglecting recent developments in this area that will be surveyed below. ¹² By delving into Egyptian translations of complete cover-to-cover Israeli and Hebrew books across various genres, we strive to provide a better comprehension of the dynamics of cultural ties between the two states and societies, as well as various dimensions of Egyptian society's perceptions of the relations with Israel.

The underlying premise is that translation is not a mere transfer of text from the source language to the target language. Instead, it posits that translation engages in a dialectical relationship with spaces of social and political discourse, being both influenced by these arenas and influencing them. ¹³ The field of translation, driven by a concern for the reception of the translation, is shaped by the norms and codes of behavior adhered to by the target audience. Competing norms may coexist and change over time. Translations not only mirror these norms but actively participate in their formulation. If we assume that the translators, editors, publishers, and other professionals involved in the production process are not autonomous free agents but rather take into consideration the worldviews of their readers and customers, a translation becomes a reflection not only of its producers’ personal views but of prevalent ideologies in the surrounding milieu. At times, the translation even contributes to the dissemination of these perceptions and their consolidation within the community. ¹⁴ Consequently, an examination of Egyptian translations of Israeli literatures and their evolution and characteristics can offer insights not only into the dynamics of the cultural connections between the two states but also into the attitudes of the government, the intellectual elite and academia, and the educated populace in Egypt toward peace relations with Israel.

To lay the groundwork for this research, we curated a corpus comprising 80 Hebrew books authored by Israelis, which were translated into Arabic by an Egyptian translator and/or were published by an Egyptian publishing house. Within this corpus, there are an additional 25 Egyptian translations of books authored by Israelis and translated from a non-Hebrew source texts (mainly English), as well as 13 Egyptian translations of Hebrew books predating the establishment of Israel, primarily Jewish literature. This diverse collection of 118 books spans various genres such as fiction, non-fiction, biblical literature, and more.

The objective of this article is to elucidate the shifts in the evolution of Egyptian translations of Hebrew and Israeli books, typify the various approaches in Egypt to such translations, both supportive and opposing, and discern the criteria influencing the selection of texts for translation. Thus, the first section will outline the development of Egyptian translations of Israeli and Hebrew literatures over the last century, focusing mainly on the period since the establishment of the State of Israel to the present day. It will scrutinize the frequency of publication of these translations and analyze the Egyptian government's stance and influence on this matter, exploring potential changes over time. Additionally, the section will investigate the extent to which these dynamics are influenced by the evolution of the Israeli–Arab conflict, relations between Israel and Egypt, and other contributing factors. In the second section, five distinct approaches within the Egyptian intellectual discourse will be detailed concerning whether the act of translating Hebrew and Israeli books is viewed as normalization and deemed desirable. The third chapter will uncover the criteria guiding text selection and categorize them thematically, assuming that the inclusion or exclusion of certain types of texts is often guided implicitly by social conventions. ¹⁵

Throughout history, Egypt has engaged in the translation of books from various foreign source languages, spanning governmental, foreign, or private contexts, all serving national, political, and personal objectives. ¹⁶ Translations of Hebrew and Israeli books appear to have followed a unique trajectory influenced by the dynamics of the ongoing Arab–Israeli conflict more than by the signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. The following section will outline key milestones in the evolution of Egyptian translations of Israeli literatures over the last century, focusing on the period since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.

During the first half of the twentieth century, most translations of Hebrew books found in Egypt were initiated by members of the Jewish community residing there at that time. These translations were intended for the use of the local Jewish community and primarily focused on Jewish prayers, religious holidays, textbooks, and a select number of research books. ¹⁷ In 1955, the ‘One Thousand Books’ (Alf Kitāb) initiative was launched under the endorsement of President Gamal Abdel Nasser and led by the renowned intellectual and former Minister of Education, Tah Husayn, in an attempt to translate one thousand titles. Richard Jacquemond described this project as an eclectic compilation, primarily featuring classics from Western literature and thought. Successful in translating over 700 titles, the Alf Kitāb project came to a halt amidst the crisis that unfolded in Egypt following the defeat in the 1967 war. ¹⁸ The practice of translating Israeli books, though, was not customary in Egypt until after the 1967 Arab–Israeli war, possibly due to cultural blockage arising from a reluctance to acknowledge the legitimacy of the State of Israel. ¹⁹

Following the 1967 defeat, there was a transformation in the tendency to refrain from translating Israeli works in Egypt, a stance initially intended to prevent the influx of Israeli ideas into the country. This change was evident with Abdel Nasser's initiative of the series ‘Know Your Enemy’, led by journalist Anis Mansur, based on the belief that the defeat was partly due to insufficient knowledge about Israel. This translation initiative was intended to enhance Egypt's capabilities in dealing with its adversary. However, within this effort, only a limited number of books by Israeli authors were translated, mostly consisting of memoirs penned by Israeli political and military leaders. ²⁰ Even the signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979 did not lead to a significant surge in the volume of Egyptian translations of Israeli books. Up until the 1990s, only a handful of translations of Israeli books were available. Since the 1990s, there has been a modest uptick in the annual number of translations, potentially influenced by the Oslo process. The (partial) compilation of translations gathered for this study indicates that since the peace agreement, Egypt sees an annual publication of up to nine translations of Hebrew and/or Israeli books, involving both state and independent publishers. On average, roughly 2.5 books authored by Israelis and translated by an Egyptian translator and/or publisher have been published each year.

In the early 2000s, the Egyptian government implemented an official non-translation policy concerning Israeli works. This change was driven by the authorities’ decision to refrain from directly approaching Israeli writers or publishers for copyright requests, a step taken in compliance with a new law for intellectual property protection that came into force in Egypt in 2002, mandating the country to uphold copyright standards. ²¹ Consequently, translating Israeli works became officially labeled as an act of normalization, an action avoided by the Ministry of Culture. Since then, official translation bodies have confined themselves to translating older Israeli and Hebrew books whose copyrights have expired or have resorted to using an intermediary language, translating books authored by Israelis that were originally written in English or translated into English.

In 2006, Egypt commemorated the realization of the longstanding goal of translating a thousand titles, initially set during Abdel Nasser's era. This achievement was attributed to a state-led translation project launched in 1995 under the guidance of Gaber ʿUsfur and operating within the Supreme Council for Culture of the Ministry of Culture. Among the thousand translated books, only four (less than 0.5 percent) were translated from Hebrew, and they were published just prior to the change in copyright policy (two more books by Israeli authors were translated from English). These translations consist of reference books covering biblical criticism, the history of the Jews in Egypt, the depiction of Arabs in Israeli art, and the relationships between religious and secular sects in Israeli society. ²²

After attaining the goal of translating a thousand titles, the national translation project transitioned to oversight of the ‘National Center for Translation’, also led by ʿUsfur. The center proudly expanded its scope to include translations from over 30 source languages, with Hebrew being among them. However, in an interview with the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram, ʿUsfur made it clear that the National Center for Translation upholds the approach championed by Nasser and still perceives Israel as an enemy. ²³ Consequently, the center's catalog of translations from Hebrew encompasses solely commentaries by medieval sages on the Bible, originally written in Judeo–Arabic (Arabic written in Hebrew letters) and subsequently rendered in Arabic letters. Additionally, the center has published translations of documents from the Israeli State Archives and the IDF Archives related to the 1973 Arab–Israeli war, which are exempt from copyright requirements. The center has also released individual translations from English of books by Israeli authors, particularly non-fiction works addressing the history of Egypt and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. ²⁴

In May 2008, the Egyptian Minister of Culture at the time, Farouk Husni, sparked a diplomatic uproar when he stated before the Egyptian Parliament that he would burn any Israeli book found in Egyptian libraries. Being a prominent candidate for the presidency of UNESCO, Husni later retracted his statement and hinted at a potential shift in the official Egyptian policy regarding translations from Hebrew. He announced his ministry's intention to translate two novels by prominent Israeli novelists, Amos Oz and David Grossman. However, the National Center for Translation promptly clarified that there was no plan to translate any book by an Israeli author directly from Hebrew, but only from a European language. ²⁵ Despite this incident, there was no substantial change in the official Egyptian policy regarding the translation of Israeli belletristic literature following Husni's declaration.

Given the attitude of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture toward translations of Israeli and Hebrew books, only approximately 25 percent of the translated books surveyed in this study were published by a governmental agency. In contrast, the majority—approximately 56 percent—were published by independent private publishing houses while around 18 percent were produced by university presses, with the Center for Oriental Studies at Cairo University being the most notable among them. ²⁶ These translations are infrequent, typically initiated by independent publishing houses and occasionally at the behest of Israeli authors. The list of translators encompasses nearly 60 individuals. Each translator on the list has undertaken the translation of anywhere between one and seven books, except for ʿAmr Zakariya, an employee of the Israeli Academic Center in Cairo, who has contributed over 20 translations, constituting around 20 percent of the total. Other notable translators are often academics and researchers affiliated with departments of Hebrew and Israeli studies in universities, such as Muhammad Mahmud Abu Ghadir from al-Azhar University, Ahmad Muhammad al-Huwaydi from Cairo University, and Ahmad Kamel Rawi from Helwan University. Alternatively, individuals engaged in journalism, like Badr al-Rifaʿi and Nael al-Tukhi, also stand out. Among the independent publishing houses listed, each has published either a single translation or at most up to seven translations from Hebrew. Noteworthy contributors in this domain include EMDCO (now closed) and Ibn Lukman.

The examination of the evolution of Egyptian translations of Israeli works over the past decades, as outlined above, provides only a partial insight into the diverse attitudes in Egypt toward such translations. Analyzing the prefaces found in most translated books gathered for this study – contributed by translators, editors, or publishers – coupled with official statements regarding the translation from Hebrew and relevant op-eds in the Egyptian media, brings to light five distinct perspectives. These viewpoints delve into the question of whether translating Israeli and Hebrew books is seen as a form of normalization, and as a result, whether such translations are deemed legitimate.

The first approach completely rejects the translation of Israeli works as part of the reluctance to recognize the state of Israel. This stance was predominantly observed after the establishment of the state of Israel and prior to the 1967 defeat, unrelated to the question of the legitimacy of normalization as this concept only gained currency in the Arab–Israeli context with the Egyptian–Israeli peace process. ²⁷ As Kayyal notes, the prevailing state of hostility between the Arab world and Israel delayed interest in Hebrew–Israeli literature until after 1967. During this period, there was a near-total disregard in Arabic culture for Israeli society and its culture, stemming from the rejection of Israel's existence. From 1948 to 1967, Arab security authorities were responsible for gathering essential information about Israel, its society, and its culture. ²⁸

The second approach we detected asserts that translating a book authored by an Israeli does not constitute normalization, and therefore it is deemed permissible and justified, particularly if it serves Egyptian or Arab interests. This utilitarian perception of translation was evident in Nasser's initiative of ‘Know Your Enemy’, and it appears to be the most prevalent attitude among the translations surveyed. For decades, many translators, editors, and publishers have presented their work as a service to the Egyptian homeland and the broader Arab cause. They consider the acquisition of crucial knowledge about Israel as a strategic asset for national security, serving as a tool in the hands of decision-makers. Some emphasize the significance of translating Israeli books manipulatively, directly confronting the source text to counter what they perceive as distortions propagated by Israeli authors. Their objective is to prevent Israel from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas. According to this standpoint, translation serves not only as a tool for understanding the adversary but also as a means of combating it. It is viewed as an acceptable instrument for informing, persuading, and mobilizing public opinion, fostering cultural and ideological resistance, even in an era of peace. ²⁹

The third approach asserts that translation is an embodiment of normalization, making it categorically prohibited. Some advocate a complete prohibition, while others permit it only through indirect means, provided there is no direct engagement with an Israeli entity. This stance is particularly associated with the position of the Egyptian Ministry of Culture since the early 2000s, as detailed above. The Ministry's viewpoint, equating translation of Israeli and Hebrew books with normalization and rejecting both, garnered public support from Egyptian writers. They expressed concerns that such translations might erode the psychological barrier between Egyptians and Israel, posing risks to them and the broader Arab community. The apprehensions include fears of cultural invasion and the acceptance of Israel as a natural part of the region. ³⁰

A fourth perspective asserts that translation serves the cause of enlightenment (tanwīr) rather than normalization (taṭbīʿ). This view regards translation as a universal tool for building knowledge in the pursuit of freedom and intellectual enrichment. ³¹ Prominent Egyptian translators, such as ʿAmr Zakariya and Husayn Sarrag, align with this stance, viewing translation as an act of ‘knowledge for the sake of knowledge’ that should be conducted without constraints, for the sake of humanity. ³² This perspective finds acceptance among a few intellectuals and enlightened liberals engaged in critical discourse, who face vigorous public criticism. Within this framework, some translators justify translating Israeli and Hebrew books as a form of protest against the autocratic Egyptian government, embedded in the context of internal political power struggles. According to this viewpoint, the government's opposition to certain translations aims to maintain Egyptian society in a state of closed-mindedness, intellectual impoverishment, and passivity. Hence, translation of Hebrew and Israeli books is not seen as a forbidden normalization but as a crucial endeavor to foster openness, critical thinking, freedom of opinion and choice, and activism. ³³ Though this approach seems to be expanding, it remains on the periphery, and its advocates use it apologetically, often feeling compelled to rationalize their actions.

The fifth perspective is maintained by a select few who openly advocate for translation as a legitimate and desirable means of achieving full normalization. Israeli academic, writer, and translator, Sasson Somekh, noted that Nobel Prize laureate for literature, Naguib Mahfouz, was among the Egyptian minority advocating for translations from Hebrew and expressed disappointment that the peace treaty did not lead to an increase in such translations. Somekh also pointed out that ‘Mahfouz's calls, along with those of other writers, were a lone voice in the wilderness.’ ³⁴ In one of his columns, the prominent Egyptian journalist, Anis Mansour, lauded the numerous translations of Egyptian masterpieces into Hebrew, presenting translations as a manifestation of friendship, mutual understanding, and good neighborliness, bolstering peace between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. ³⁵ Egyptian playwright, author, and political commentator, ʿAli Salem, known for controversially endorsing cooperation with Israel, is another public figure supporting translations and normalization. In a 2009 interview with al-Jazeera, he challenged the Egyptian Ministry of Culture's official stance of avoiding the translation of Israeli fiction from the source language. ³⁶ Egyptian left-wing intellectual, writer, and peace activist, Amin al-Mahdi, expressed a similar viewpoint in his introduction to the Arabic translation of the Israeli novel The Book of Intimate Grammer (Sefer HaDiḳduḳ HaPnimi) by David Grossman. ³⁷ This perspective represents a minority opinion, as the dominant norm, shaped by official stances and public sentiment, is to refrain from publicly endorsing normalization.

These five approaches coexist concurrently, with no strict boundaries between them or clear correlation to changing circumstances. Motivation for translation appears to be varied, often combining multiple perspectives rather than strictly adhering to one of the aforementioned approaches. For instance, the preface to the translation of the autobiography of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, written by editor ʿAbd al-Qader al-Saʿdani, highlights a blend of motivations. He criticizes Arab leaders for silencing free voices to control their people under the pretext that no voice should be louder than that of the battle against Israel. Translator ʿAziz ʿAzmi, in his own introduction, adds that the motivation for the translation includes expanding knowledge on the 1973 Arab–Israeli war, boosting national morale, reducing fears of Israel's power, reinforcing the Arab narrative that Jews were not expelled from Arab countries but emigrated under pressure from the Zionist movement, and confronting the Zionist narrative. ³⁸

The corpus compiled for this study enables us to not only evaluate the scope and volume of translations or depict diverse approaches to translation and normalization within specific segments of Egyptian society; it also allows us to explore the texts comprising the inventory of translated books and the underlying selection criteria. Operating under the assumption that the inclusion or exclusion of certain publications is often implicitly guided by public codes of behavior, such an examination contributes yet another dimension to our comprehension of Egyptian translation norms, as well as Egyptian attitudes toward peace, normalization, and cultural exchange with Israel.

A predominant majority of the translated books surveyed (approximately 80 percent) fall within the category of reference books, encompassing subjects such as Middle Eastern history, the Arab–Israeli conflict, Israeli society, and Judaism. Repeatedly, the rationale provided for these translations in the prefaces to the translated books centers on the high quality of Israeli academic research on the history of the region, particularly Egypt. Recognition is given to its significant contribution to comprehending the processes and events spanning the Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and Late Modern periods. ³⁹ This is particularly noteworthy, considering the utilization of abundant sources that remain unacknowledged in current Arabic-language studies. ⁴⁰ There is also a commendation of the Israeli side's interest and understanding of contemporary events in Arab countries, accompanied by criticism of the limited interest on the Arab side regarding developments in Israel. ⁴¹ However, this appreciation is not without disagreement with the Israeli interpretation. ⁴² ʿAmr Zakariya's three-volume series of translations further illustrates an appreciation for Israel's accomplishments in establishing relations with Asian and African nations. It acknowledges Israel's success in reshaping the attitudes of Eastern European countries, even to the point of viewing Israel as a role model. ⁴³

A significant portion of the translated works on the Israeli–Arab conflict falls under the category of military and war literature. Translator Badr al-Rifaʿi has stressed the importance of translating books of this nature in the preface to the translation of Haim Herzog's The Arab–Israeli Wars: Wars and Peace in the Middle East from the War of Independence through Lebanon, published in Egypt during the early 1990s amidst the Oslo peace process. Al-Rifaʿi asserted that since the ongoing process would not bring an end to the conflict, it is fitting to enhance the Arab literary collection with works that facilitate preparation and offer insights into the military aspects. ⁴⁴ In the translation of diaries authored by Israeli statesmen, diplomats, and military officers, as well as archival documents, there is a discernible intent to extract confessions from Israeli voices that challenge the perceived notion of Israeli military superiority over Arab armies. An example of this is evident in Moshe Levy's book detailing the sinking of the naval destroyer Eilat by the Egyptian Navy in October 1967. ⁴⁵ Furthermore, there is a notable inclination to release translations of books that underscore the scale of the Israeli defeat in the 1973 war, highlight the remarkable progress of Egyptian military and strategic doctrine, and emphasize the high capabilities of the Egyptian soldier. This tendency arises from a desire to protest the humiliation of Egypt's defeat in 1967 and demonstrate Egypt's capability to neutralize Israel's ‘long arm’. ⁴⁶ For instance, in the preface to the translation of Golda Meir's My Life, the publishing house declares that the translation aims to foster increased appreciation for President Sadat among Arabs, praising him for restoring pride and dignity to the Arab nation during this war. ⁴⁷

In a broader context, a tendency toward selecting texts that reinforce the Arab and Palestinian narratives of the conflict with Israel becomes evident. Mona Baker has previously emphasized the role of translation in enhancing a specific party's capacity in a conflict to legitimize its interpretation of events, counter the opposing party's interpretation, or mediate it to the reader. She perceives translation itself as a narrative, and in the translator, she identifies a narrator who socio-politically reframes the source text to engage with broader narratives beyond the immediate text, employing paratextual techniques. ⁴⁸ In the Egyptian context, a recurrent guiding principle asserts that support for the Arab-Palestinian narrative holds a distinct credibility when presented by an Israeli rather than an Arab authority. According to this perspective, an Israeli study endorsing the Palestinian narrative carries greater persuasiveness compared to a similar stance expressed by an Arab, who might be perceived by the audience as biased, non-objective, or antisemitic.

Consequently, there is a pronounced interest in the works of the ‘new historians’ and/or authors associated with post-Zionism, as well as in books addressing the historiographical debate such works have ignited within the Israeli discourse on the history of Zionism, its struggle against the Arab region, the 1948 war, and Palestinian refugees. ⁴⁹ The enthusiasm sparked by this literature in Egypt is apparent from the fact that in the year 2000 alone, the government-affiliated Ruz al-Yusuf publishing house released translations of four books authored by ‘new historians’. ⁵⁰ In this series, Ruz al-Yusuf aimed to position Egypt as a leader among Arab nations in substantiating the justice of the Palestinian struggle. This underlying motive also influences the decision to translate reports by the Israeli ‘BeTselem’ organization, which documents the infringement of Palestinian rights and efforts to obscure the Arab and Islamic identity of Jerusalem. ⁵¹

Many of the translated books show interest in Israeli society, shedding light on aspects such as the predominant influence of the military, ⁵² inferior images of the Arab citizens, ⁵³ the dynamics between religious and secular factions, ⁵⁴ and various currents within Judaism, including fanaticism in Judaism and Israeli politics, often depicted as mainstream. ⁵⁵ The exploration of secularism extends to scrutinizing the secular nature of the Zionist movement and its instrumentalization of Judaism to further political objectives. ⁵⁶ Notably, the keen interest in the internal divide within Israel between secular and religious factions sometimes serves to highlight perceived vulnerabilities within Israeli society due to a lack of internal cohesion. Familiarizing oneself with Israeli religious factions is at times deemed essential for comprehending extremist currents within Judaism that could gain influence in Israel, posing a potential threat to Egypt and the Arab world. ⁵⁷

The translated literature concerning Judaism encompasses a wide range of topics, incorporating translations from the Bible, the Talmud, and the Mishnah. Particular emphasis is given to exploring the negative portrayals of the ‘other’ within these scriptures. ⁵⁸ The relationships between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are also prominent themes in the translated works. Some of these texts put forth the assertion that Arab peoples are the origin of the Semitic peoples and their languages, simultaneously highlighting the positive impact of Islam on Jewish worship, culture, poetry, the Hebrew language, and biblical criticism. ⁵⁹ The literature underscores the tolerant treatment extended to Jews during Islamic rule in the Middle Ages and the Late Modern period. ⁶⁰ Occasionally, Judaism is characterized as a religion integral to the Arab-Muslim collective, lacking an independent or separate existence as a distinct people. ⁶¹ Works addressing Jewish life under Muslim rule are frequently framed not merely as Jewish literature but as an integral part of Arab and Muslim cultural heritage, which deserves preservation. ⁶²

Only a fraction of the translated Israeli books (approximately 20 percent) belong to the realm of literary fiction. Within this category, a recurring trend involves translating the works of Jews of Arab origin and/or novels revolving around Eastern Judaism. Amin al-Mahdi elucidated the rationale behind this selection in the preface to the translation of Sami Michael's Victoria. The novel narrates the life of a daughter from a Jewish family, spanning from her birth in Baghdad at the start of the twentieth century to her life in Israel, and stands as one of the first novels to be published in Egypt (translated by the Jewish–Iraqi writer Samir Naqqash). In the publisher's introduction, al-Mahdi clarified his perspective, deeming this work as ‘Arabic literature written in Hebrew’ or ‘Hebrew literature with Arabic memory’. By doing so, he aimed to associate his interest in this novel with its relevance to Arab-Eastern heritage and distance it from any connection to Zionism. ⁶³ Likewise, in the introduction to his translation of Eli Amir's Yasmin, Husayn Sarrag remarked on the controversy stirred by the translation's publication in the Arab world, that the author of the novel ‘went back to being an Arab.’ ⁶⁴ To these novels, one can add The Pictures on the Wall by Tsionit Fattal Kuperwasser and Rachel and Ezekiel by Almog Behar. These works also shed light on the fascination that Eastern Judaism generates in Egypt and its contribution to the expansion of prose translations. ⁶⁵

In addition, there is a preference for translating works by Israelis of Egyptian origin. ⁶⁶ For instance, the poetry and prose of Egyptian-born Ada Aharoni, which reflect her fond memories of the Egyptian people and her life in the country, are often favored for translation. ⁶⁷ In the preface by Muhammad Fawzy Dayf, the editor of the translation of Aharoni's novel Keruṿ Leṿaṿot (Tel Aviv: Gvanim, 2010), it is clear that he aims to underscore, through the translation of the book, that the Jews who lived in Egypt were an integral part of the social fabric and contributed to Arab culture, and to refute claims that they experienced discrimination or persecution that led to their emigration from Egypt. Additionally, through Aharoni's writings, Dayf seeks to emphasize that it was the Zionist movement that created the atmosphere that led to the departure of the Jews, even though Aharoni describes the Jews’ displacement from Egypt as expulsion in the novel. ⁶⁸ Also of special interest are works by Arab authors living in Israel, originally penned in Hebrew, out of curiosity about the marginal but expanding phenomenon of Arabs writing in Hebrew and a desire to gain insights into the complex identities of Arab citizens in Israel. ⁶⁹

While translations of non-fiction books generally fall within the boundaries of the Egyptian consensus, translations of literary works often provoke significant public opposition. The renowned Egyptian novelist, ʿAlaʾ al-Aswani, for instance, expressed his objection to the translation of Hebrew novels into Arabic following the translation of Amir's Yasmin. He claimed that the translation project was motivated by financial gain and that those behind it should be persecuted for agreeing to maintain cultural relations with Israelis. According to al-Aswany – who was himself accused of normalization with Israel a few years later after his trilogy was translated into Hebrew and he gave a recorded interview to an Israeli radio station – while reading Israeli literature is important for understanding the enemy, having direct contact with Israelis is unacceptable. ⁷⁰

In an attempt to mitigate audience reactions, publishers have sought to justify the translation of Israeli novels by asserting that the authors are associated with the Israeli left side of the political spectrum. For instance, in the translation of Amos Oz's My Michael, translator Rifʿat Fuda provided a preface, emphasizing that the translation was chosen because Oz is a member of the ‘peace camp’, taking a critical stance toward Israel's policy regarding Palestinians and advocating for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Similarly, in the case of the translation of David Grossman's The Book of Intimate Grammar, the publisher took care to mention in the preface that Grossman is a peace activist who supports Palestinian rights and is critical of the social and political reality in Israel. The preface aimed to distance Grossman from loyalty to the values of Zionism. However, these apologetic statements failed to allay the criticism of the translation of fiction.

Egyptian author and playwright Ahmad al-Khamisi explained why the translation of Israeli novels should be avoided in comparison to informative literature. According to al-Khamisi, Israeli novels such as those by Grossman and Oz do not accurately portray the Israeli character. Instead, they present an invented human character that hides the aggressive and barbaric nature of the Israeli personality and makes it appear more favorable than reality. ⁷¹ The Egyptian translator Nael al-Tukhi recounted that following the publication of his translation of Rachel and Ezekiel, he faced accusations from critics who claimed he was humanizing the enemy. In response, he defended himself by asserting that the enemy is a human being and that it is essential to know him. Moreover, al-Tukhi argued that the novel portrays Israel in a negative light, depicting it as a nation that has appropriated Jewish memory. ⁷² It is no surprise, then, that among the Israeli prose translated in Egypt which did not provoke any public dissent, was David Melamed's dystopia HaḤalom HaReṿiʿi: Yoman Eruʿim which portrays the fall of the State of Israel at the hands of Arab armies. ⁷³

Based on the above overview, it becomes evident that the selection of texts for translation is in line with the ongoing intellectual and public discourse on the legitimacy and purpose of translating Israeli and Hebrew works, as discussed in the previous section. This section, too, presents a nuanced scenario wherein instrumental motives for translation coexist with curiosity and a willingness to engage in cultural openness and familiarity, albeit not as the predominant approach. Based on Menna Abukhadra's depiction of the orientation of Hebrew and Israel Studies in Egyptian academia, particularly at Cairo University, the texts chosen for translation largely conform to the orientation of texts used for teaching Hebrew and Israel studies in Egyptian universities, which are ‘heavily influenced by Israel's image in Arab culture in general and Egyptian culture in particular’. According to her, the teaching focuses on Hebrew texts that address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting the political positions of authors, their support for Palestinians, and their criticism of the Israeli government. In religious studies, the emphasis is ‘on the negative sides of Judaism,’ while in historical studies, the focus is on the Jewish occupation of the land of Palestine in the modern era. ⁷⁴

The categorization of books across different genres reflects the preferences of educated individuals, including academics, intellectuals, and media figures, while also considering potential responses from the general public. However, it is crucial to recognize that the reach of these translated books is limited, and they generally lack widespread popularity. There have been instances where the presentation of a translated book at the annual book fair in Cairo triggered outrage, resulting in its removal from the shelves. ⁷⁵ Additionally, in some cases, certain translated books may not even make it to the stores. In recent years, however, many of these translated books have become available online, potentially reaching wider audiences in the Arabic-speaking world.

This article aimed to investigate the established norms in Egypt concerning the translation of Israeli and Hebrew books into Arabic. More broadly, the goal was to explore the cultural connections between Israel and Egypt and to understand Egyptian perceptions regarding ties with Israel, especially in the context of peace and normalization. The article addressed three key questions: How has the translation of Hebrew and Israeli literatures evolved in Egypt since the establishment of the State of Israel to the present day? Is the translation of these books considered legitimate at both the state and popular levels in Egypt, and why? Lastly, what criteria determine the selection of books for translation, and why were these particular works chosen?

Regarding the first question, the study discovered that over the last decades, there were notable shifts in the attitude toward the translation of Israeli and Hebrew books in Egypt. From 1948 to 1967, it was uncommon to translate such books, with the exception being within the Jewish community and individual cases, reflecting a disregard for the existence of the State of Israel. Following Egypt's defeat in the 1967 war, the regime led by Gamal Abdel Nasser encouraged an approach favoring such translations based on a rationale of ‘know your enemy’. The signing of the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979 did not yield a substantial increase in the volume of Hebrew and Israeli books translations. A slight uptick was observed in the 1990s, possibly influenced by the Oslo process. In 2002, after Egypt adopted a law for the protection of intellectual property rights mandating copyright protection, the Egyptian Ministry of Culture implemented an official policy refraining from translating books that would necessitate direct contact with Israelis, as a measure to avoid normalization. Consequently, the Egyptian Ministry of Culture only translates Israeli books through an intermediary language, or books and archival documents that do not require contact with an Israeli agency.

Although the Egyptian cultural boycott of Israel is a non-governmental initiative, the stated position of the Egyptian regime since the 2000s regarding the translation of Israeli books establishes and reinforces anti-normalization perceptions. However, the number of Hebrew and Israeli translated books published annually has seen a slight increase compared to the period before this shift in government policy. It follows that while the government maintains a formal policy in the public sector that reflects popular sentiment against normalization and limits the scope and content of translations, it allows the private sector a degree of diversity and flexibility in translating Israeli and Hebrew books. This assessment is supported by the observation that some of the privately produced translations appear to seek official approval for distribution in Egypt, as noted by Yaakov Setty, former spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Cairo. ⁷⁶

In addressing the second question, the study identifies five perspectives on whether translation from Hebrew is perceived in Egypt as a form of normalization and whether it is considered legitimate. The first approach rejects such translations entirely as part of a cultural blockade. The second and most common view considers translation as an acceptable tool in an ideological and explanatory battle, a way to galvanize public opinion toward the Arab-Palestinian narrative and counter the Israeli narrative of the conflict. The third perspective, associated with the Egyptian regime, regards such translations as normalization to be avoided or at least circumvented. The fourth perspective, identified with some liberal intellectuals and critics of Egypt's authoritarian government, holds that translation produces ‘knowledge for the sake of knowledge’, contributes to humanity, and aims to break the mental confinement imposed by the oppressive regime on its citizens. Finally, a minority view considers direct translation from Hebrew a desirable act to fully normalize relations, though few openly and unapologetically promote this stance. The prevailing norm appears to be refraining from publicly endorsing normalization, driven by the stance of the authorities and the influence of public opinion. These factors collectively shape the decisions of translators and publishers in both the private and public domains.

Regarding the third question, the study reveals a preference for translating reference books over fictional literature which often provoke broad public opposition. Most translated books are non-fiction, focusing more on conflict than on peace, on the tensions between Israel and Arab countries rather than on the potential benefits of peace, and on the extreme elements within Israeli society rather than its mainstream perspectives. Translations are frequently used as a polemical tool in the Israeli–Arab conflict to promote the Arab narrative over the Israeli one, defend Egyptian honor, and bolster morale. However, there are also numerous examples where translations aim to understand Israel's historic and current viewpoints, as well as Israeli perceptions of Arabs. Some translators and editors actively engage with and dispute the assertions made by the authors of the books they translate. In another subset of translations, there is recognition and appreciation for the Israeli side's interest in the Arab perspective, the region's history, and the sources needed to understand it. While some translations convey criticism of Zionism, there is a more positive stance towards Judaism as a religion, emphasizing a narrative of harmonious coexistence between Jews and Muslims under Muslim rule. Overall, the study reveals a nuanced landscape: while most translations are driven by instrumental motivations, there is also an element of curiosity and openness to cultural exchange, though this is not the predominant approach. An important aspect of future research could include evaluating the quality of translations and exploring correlations between translation quality, the approach to translation, and the selection of texts. Another valuable direction would be to conduct a comparative study examining how other Arab countries approach translations of Israeli literatures. This could reveal regional variations in attitudes and practices, shedding light on differing cultural and political influences across the Arab world. Additionally, it would be insightful to investigate whether Egypt's policies regarding the translation of Israeli literatures influence the approaches of other Arab countries. Given Egypt's prominent role as a cultural leader in the region, understanding its impact on the broader Arab landscape could provide a deeper comprehension of the dynamics shaping literary exchanges and cultural relations in the Middle East.