The interview conducted by the Egyptian media with Gilad Shalit prior to turning him over to Israeli custody has elicited much comment in Israel, little of it being good. According to Israeli experts, Gilad’s body language during the interview spoke for itself, exhibiting a realization that he was still not a free man, working to find the correct response, a response that would not jeopardize his imminent release. Some analysts in Israel explain it was also a clear message from the new Egyptian administration, to put Israel in her place, to show that even while Israel’s good friend Hosni Mubarak is gone Egypt remains the regional Arab leader, and Cairo today opted to exercise that authority with Gilad Shalit.

The state television interviewer, Sahira Amin, told BBC that she was not given questions by Hamas, but conducted a professional interview as she would normally do. She added that if at any time Gilad would have told her he is not up to it she would have canceled the interview, but this was not the case. She added that she was unaware that Shalit was compelled to take part “by someone”. She met with Egyptian intelligence officials a day earlier, and she was told that it would occur.

Amin explained that she was told she was going to be granted an interview a day ahead of Gilad’s arrival, but she was not certain it would take place; realizing last-minute changes are always a possibility, especially in this type of situation. “I was shocked when I saw him, so frail and appeared blind. I became emotional for my son is also 25, just like him”.

Amin was asked if she was aware of just how much anger her interview created in Israel, stating she was aware that for Shalit it was very exhausting, but nevertheless thought it important for the international community to hear and see him. “I feel fortunate for having the interview, and felt good to see him released and united with his family”.

Amin was a prominent journalist during the Mubarak administration, a respected media personality in Egypt, but the interview was viewed as bizarre and painful by Israel at best, adding the process was conducted in three languages. The questions were asked in English, translated to Hebrew, and Shalit responded in Hebrew, all while Arabic translation was taking place as well. Shalit appeared confused at best, possibly from the use of three languages.

Journalists in Israel add the interview appeared spontaneous, and all parties appeared ill prepared.

(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)