Since the 1978 peace treaty, the governments of Egypt and Israel have developed strong ties, and by all accounts military and security cooperation has never been stronger or more extensive. Yet popular anti-Israel sentiment in Egypt is intense; few Egyptians travel to Israel; and social, cultural, and economic ties are almost nonexistent. Haisam Hassanein explains that, paradoxically, much of this sentiment is generated by the Egyptian regime itself:

While Israeli tourism in Egypt has surged during periods of calm, Egyptian tourists have only trickled into Israel, partly because Egyptians who visit Israel risk harassment by Egypt’s security apparatus. . . . Israel often has been the target for protests within Egypt, as well as the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, making every high-level Israeli-Egyptian interaction politically risky for Egyptian officials. . . .

Simply put, an ordinary Egyptian cannot travel to Israel. The government . . . limits such travel to diplomats, journalists, and Coptic pilgrims who wish to visit Christian sites in Jerusalem, though those Christians must be over the age of forty. . . . Consider [also] that multiple public institutions, roads, schools and even cities are named to commemorate the 1973 war, but none honors the [peace] treaty; this reflects the Egyptian government’s refusal to inform its public about peace with Israel. . . .

Therefore, one of the biggest obstacles to full normalization is the Egyptian government, which still engages in anti-Israel rhetoric. The most obvious example took place this past Ramadan, when TV viewing was at its yearly peak. In a TV show sponsored directly by the Egyptian intelligence services, Jews and Israelis continued to be portrayed negatively—as spies, thieves, killers, and socially immoral individuals.

The indoctrination of hate that unfortunately gets passed down from generation to generation hinders opportunities for true peace. The history of the Middle East tells a tragic and cautionary tale that must not be forgotten, but what the region needs is real progress. It needs people who recognize the positive, and work toward a more collective and inclusive future.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.