When Peace Treaties are Leveraged as Extortion - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

The problem with Israel's "cold peace" with its neighbors isn't the lack of symmetry in the treaties, but rather that Jordan and Egypt are using the agreements to deter Israel from acting in its own best interest.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
Israel Hayom..
20 May '20..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/extortion-using-the-peace-treaty/

In Defense Minister Benny Gantz and Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi's swearing-in speeches, they both declared their loyalty to the path of peace.

"I am committed to doing everything possible to promote diplomatic solutions and making peace," Gantz stated, while Ashkenazi said, "President Trump's peace plan is a historic opportunity … it will be promoted, responsibly and in coordination with the US, while keeping peace agreements in place."

If it weren't for the unusual political context, in light of the dispute over Israel applying sovereignty to Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, the discussion about peace agreements would be nothing more than a standard message. But given warnings from King Abdullah of Jordan and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas against Israel's planned moves, and given the internal debate in Israel about the issue, their words take on a special meaning, a king of commitment to making Israeli steps toward sovereignty conditional upon regional consent.

No one disagrees that peace is worthy goal. The picture becomes more complicated when we look at the ways in which the peace between Israel and its neighbors has been implemented. A dynamic has developed in which their behavior toward Israel is often reminiscent of demanding protection money to be left alone. The Hashemite Kingdom plays an important and welcome role in keeping the peace along the Israeli-Jordanian border, but when experts on Israeli-Jordanian relations recommend that because of that, Israel refrain from taking action on behalf of its own interests in the Jordan Valley, and warn about the risk of losing the peace deal, we are getting close to extortion.

Forty years on, thoughts on the Sinai withdrawal's dangerous legacy - by Michael Freund

So when we look back on the peace treaty with Egypt, we need to do so with our eyes wide open, cognizant of the fact that since relations between states can be ephemeral, territory is not something Israel should ever consider abandoning.

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/Jerusalem Post..
22 March '19..
Link: http://www.michaelfreund.org/22492/sinai-withdrawal-dangerous-legacy  

If you open Google Earth and search for "Yamit, Sinai," the globe on your screen will slowly spin its way to the Middle East before zooming in on a small area in the northern Sinai Peninsula, just west of Gaza (though it comes up as "Yammit").

There, amid the sand dunes, one can still see the bare and bulldozed ground where the town of Yamit, a thriving Jewish community of 2,500 people, once stood, until it was uprooted and destroyed in 1982 as part of the peace treaty with Egypt.

The contours of various structures are still visible, paying silent testimony to the traumatic removal of Jews from their homes that was carried out by a Jewish government.

As Israel marks 40 years since the signing of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty on the White House Lawn, it is worth recalling the expulsion that was wrought in its wake, as more than a dozen Jewish communities in Sinai, numbering a total of 7,000 people, were compelled to disband and depart.

While forgoing Sinai might have brought us four decades of a cold peace with Egypt, it also elicited a heavy price from the Jewish state, one that continues to haunt us until the present day.

After a century in which the values of Zionism and settling the land had prevailed, Israel suddenly took a sharp U-turn, conferring legitimacy on the illegitimate idea that peace must necessarily entail withdrawal and retreat.

In the miraculous victory of the 1967 war, the Jewish people were granted a Divine gift. Over the course of just six days, we were reunited with the Temple Mount, the hills of Samaria and the streets of Hebron.

And in reclaiming Sinai, where our ancestors wandered for decades after the Exodus from Egypt, Israel was blessed with priceless strategic depth, along with military installations, oil fields, and an untamed desert waiting to be developed.

But just 12 years later, acting as though it was in a rush to unload the peninsula, the Jewish state gave in to Egyptian demands and turned over the Sinai's 61,000 sq.km. (23,550 sq.mi.) to foreign control.

In one fell swoop, Israel had given away more than 90% of the territory it had liberated during the 1967 Six Day War.

SIMPLY PUT, the withdrawal from Sinai laid the groundwork for later expulsions, heralding decades of further Israeli territorial concessions.

Israel and Saudi Arabia: Good Neighbor Policy - by Elliott Abrams

...Discussions of this potential construction have apparently taken place, and Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia seem to be acting like…..neighbors. That is, common sense is prevailing, rights are being respected, and while Israel and Saudi Arabia have no direct public contacts at all they are able to communicate and get business done. This is a huge change, and of course a welcome one– though the background story of their common fears about American policy and the growing power of common enemies is not at all comforting.

Elliott Abrams..
Pressure Points..
15 April '16..

The recent announcement that Egypt was returning control over Tiran and Sanafir islands in the Gulf of Aqaba to Saudi Arabia has gotten some attention, but deserves more. It is a moment that reveals much about current Middle Eastern politics.

In 1950 the Saudis transferred control, but in their view never sovereignty, over the islands to Egypt to protect them from what it claimed was the threat of an Israeli takeover. During a visit to Egypt by King Salman this past week, control was transferred back. (There is a reasonably fierce debate in Egypt over whether in fact President Sisi has unconstitutionally abandoned sovereign territory– or anyway as fierce as debates can be given repression and censorship in Egypt.)

During the past few years we have heard repeatedly that relations between Israel and the Gulf Arab states were greatly improved because today they have common enemies in Iran and ISIS, and a common concern about the disappearance of American hegemony in the region. What happened with the two islands this week is proof that the improved relations really do exist.

For one thing, Saudi Arabia has apparently agreed to respect the terms of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1979. When that treaty was signed in 1979, the Saudis denounced it and broke relations with Egypt. Times have changed. The treaty contains this clause:

Listening to Israel on Egypt

There is more to democracy than simply holding an election that allows organized totalitarians like the Brotherhood, who actually oppose freedom, to take power that they will never peacefully relinquish. If Israeli diplomats and government officials are telling their Western counterparts that democracy is not currently an option in Egypt it is because they, and not Israel’s detractors, are in touch with reality.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
19 August '13..

The Obama administration’s indecision on the crisis in Egypt isn’t winning it many friends. While it is taking heat from figures on both the right and the left for not cutting all ties with the military government of Egypt, the same critics have failed to note that it is chipping away at the relationship in significant ways. Yesterday Washington announced that it is halting economic assistance to Cairo to show its distaste for the coup (which it dare not call a coup) and the crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps as a prelude to cutting off the much larger amounts that go to the military. Given that Egypt’s economy needs help a lot more than its armed forces need the bright and shiny new weapons that it purchases from the United States, this doesn’t make a lot of sense if your goal is to do something to help the Egyptian people.

But even this halfway measure doesn’t go far enough for those who, as Michael Rubin noted earlier, are treating the attempt to suppress the Muslim Brotherhood as another Tiananmen Square. But since the president’s usual cheering section in the press is never comfortable saddling him with the blame for his “lead from behind” style of conducting foreign affairs, a good deal of the responsibility for America’s refusal to work harder for the restoration of the dictatorial government of Mohamed Morsi is falling on a familiar scapegoat: the State of Israel.

As this story in today’s New York Times makes clear, Israel’s efforts to advise both the United States and Europe about the choices available to them in Egypt is not meeting with universal approval. Though, as the paper noted, Israel’s government has wisely refrained from making any public statements about the chaos in Cairo, its effort to lobby the West against cutting the current Egyptian government loose is seen as hypocritical as well as self-interested. But while it may be true the military is a better partner for the Jewish state than the Brotherhood, the same can be said for the United States and the European Union. If, in fact, Israel really is waging a “desperate diplomatic battle” over Egypt, all it is doing is attempting to dispel the lingering illusions about the conflict in that country that could, if unchecked, do as much harm to U.S. concerns as to those of the Jewish state. Ironically, in contrast to the Walt-Mearsheimer “Israel Lobby” myth that falsely claims supporters of Israel are the tail that wags the American dog in conflict with U.S. interests, in this case it is fairly obvious that it is the Israelis reminding Americans to think about what is best for the United States.

What is the Real Threat to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty?

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary/Contentions..
15 November '12..

Given the brazen nature of Hamas’s decision to provoke the latest round fighting in and around Gaza, it’s difficult for Israel’s critics to claim that it was not justified in seeking to halt a barrage that sent more than 150 missiles into the south of the country. Nor could they claim with a straight face that Ahmed al-Jabari, the head of Hamas’s so-called military wing and a man responsible for numerous terrorists attacks and murders, is an innocent victim after the Israel Defense Forces took out his car in a deft targeted attack yesterday. But the naysayers are claiming that in opting to defend Israeli citizens and hopefully making it more difficult for Hamas to resume its terrorist offensive, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is effectively destroying his nation’s peace treaty with Egypt.

That’s the conceit of this New York Times article that depicts Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi as being forced into a difficult position by Israel. He is, we are told, trying to maintain the peace treaty in order to appease Western aid donors like the United States, but is still obligated by Egyptian public opinion to denounce Israel. The implication of all this is that if the treaty, which is despised by Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and extremely unpopular with the Egyptian public, is scrapped, it will be because Netanyahu has chosen to be provocative.

While it is true that the treaty is in peril, placing the blame for this on Israel is so divorced from reality it’s hard to know where to start to debunk this idea. Morsi is no victim in this scenario. If Egypt’s people are clamoring for the spilling of Israeli blood, it is, in no small measure, because his Islamist party has done its best to promote hatred of Israel and Jews to an extent that few in the West appreciate.

The Sinai - Ongoing riddles

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
08 September '12..

The Sinai desert is not what it used to be and probably never will be again. As it has gone from bad to catastrophic, including uncontrolled attacks on the Egypt to Israel gas pipeline which highlighted the Egyptian impotence in the area, we have posted here about the changes several times.

For instance, in a blog post called "17-Jul-12: Sinai used to be seen as a paradise" we noted that

Egyptian officials routinely blame Israel for "trying to spread panic with rumors and irresponsible statements" and making efforts "to impede the area's booming tourism industry" [source] But sober observers know it's far from being an Israelis-only concern.

Then came the huge August 5, 2012 attack on Egyptian security officers in Rafah. They were partaking of the post-Ramadan evening breakfast meal when unknown gunmen killed 16 soldiers and police, and Egyptian public opinion became enraged. The New York Times called it "the deadliest assault on Egyptian soldiers in recent memory" and added that, perhaps surprisingly, "there were no immediate claims of responsibility". The new Moslem Brotherhood-led government of Mohamed Morsi came under tremendous pressure to act, and they did in the traditional way: almost immediately, both Hamas and the Moslem Brotherhood publicly [source] blamed Israel for the killings.

So what's happened since then? We raised some questions last month about what is actually going on in Egypt's Sinai. See "10-Aug-12: Egypt is pouring forces into Sinai but does anyone know for sure what they are actually doing there?" and "28-Aug-12: About that major Egyptian armed offensive against Sinai terrorists: has it been called off?" It's clear that questions still need to be asked. Much of what is known tends to be confused and contradictory.

From Israel - The Handle on Sinai

Arlene Kushner..
27 August '12..





I had hoped -- deeply hoped -- to be able to turn my attention to matters other than the situation in the Sinai. But the news there has loomed so large and seemed so ominous, that it merits on-going attention. And so, once again, I begin with this subject.

This time, however, I believe I will be able to provide a bit more clarity about what's happening.

The news has been utterly confounding and filled with contradictions: Tanks have been brought in by the Egyptians to combat the jihadists with the permission of Israel; Israel did not give permission. The Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi called Israeli Defense Minister Barak and the two came to an understanding; there was no such phone call.

And, most recently: An Egyptian general came into the Sinai to negotiate with the jihadists and the efforts to take out the terrorists is over; Egyptians say they are continuing their efforts against the terrorists.

~~~~~~~~~~

The information I have now secured is from a most reliable source -- an Arabic-speaking and very savvy Israeli academic with multiple connections. He is in no way an apologist for the Egyptians. This is what he explained:

The jihadist terrorists are hiding in caves in the mountains (I have written about this) and thus tanks are worthless against them. What is needed are infantry combat units and helicopters to bring them up to the mountain tops.

~~~~~~~~~~

The tanks were brought in as a PR ploy, to show the Egyptian people the army is tough and doesn't need to abide by Israeli demands. The intent here, however, is not to set up a situation that leads to war with Israel -- my source does not anticipate that Egypt will go to war with Israel, either in the short range, or even the "medium range" future. Rather, says my source, the Egyptian government is attempting to counter or deflate the demands of those who call for breaking the peace treaty with Israel.

One might argue that bringing in the tanks has broken the treaty. And technically, this would be the case if Israel had not approved the move. But the intent here apparently was not to break it in all its parameters but, quite the contrary, to enable it to be saved. The bravado was for internal consumption.

At the end of the day, will the tanks remain? This I cannot say. Might the situation shift so that the tanks would be drawn upon in a limited military action? I have no crystal ball and so can not definitively rule this out. But what I can report is that a source I consider highly reliable has told me that it is not the intention of the Egyptian government to break the peace treaty and move towards war with Israel.

Why did Amos Gilead try to give impression all under control with Egyptian force deployment?

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
23 August '12..

Yesterday Amos Gilead, head of the Defense Ministry Political and Security Division, could barely control his temper as he sparred with Israel Radio Arab Affairs Correspondent Eran Zinger yesterday over Zinger’s report that Egypt had deployed anti-aircraft missile batteries in the Sinai. [Even if you are not very fluent in Hebrew you can listen from 5:17 in the recording - http://youtu.be/-rXOVmFAbC0 to get the flavor].

Amos Gilead clearly believes that maintaining a public narrative that all is under control with regard to the Egyptian force deployments in Sinai serves Israeli interests.

This could be for one of many reasons:

1. Making the dispute public only makes it harder for Egypt to address Israel’s concerns and remove the problematic equipment and forces.

2. Third parties who have been drafted to help resolve the crisis asked Israel to tone down the talk.

From Israel - Focused and Current

Arlene Kushner..
23 August '12..





The focus is on the situation in the Sinai:

Amos Gilad, head of the Political Diplomatic Bureau at the Ministry of Defense, said yesterday that Israel is in constant contact with the Egyptians and that we are being heard.

"When the Egyptians introduce weapons that are not included in the agreement we check it and we talk to the Egyptians about it. We have direct communication with the Egyptians and we have made it clear that we demand a complete adherence to the terms of the peace agreement.

"It is important to safeguard the Military Appendix of the peace agreement; it is the cornerstone of the peace agreement and regional stability. We look at the total regional picture: we have a changing Middle East, Iran going nuclear, and it is an important time to maintain the peace agreement. We will not agree to a violation of the Military Appendix of the peace agreement. Israel is keeping things in proportion, and we are standing fast by our interests. (Emphasis added)

"We are in constant contact with the Egyptians. They are fighting against an al-Qaida-like group of terrorists whose aim is to carry out strategic attacks that would force a confrontation between Israel and Egypt."

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=5508

~~~~~~~~~~

Dore Gold, President of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has provided a description, cited by the NY Times, of the political/diplomatic ramifications of the situation:

"To the extent that the Egyptian government challenges the clauses of the treaty of peace with Israel, it undermines the regional peace process as a whole - it's a big deal. If you don't state clearly what your concerns are as the Egyptians increase their forces in Sinai, you could end up with a fait accompli that undermines your most vital security interest." (Emphasis added)

Well... it does appear that we are doing that. Not letting any grass grow under our feet. Not turning a blind eye. But challenging the Egyptians when they test the limits of what we will permit.

~~~~~~~~~~

With all this said, it's not quite clear to me what "we are being heard" -- the claim of Gilad -- means. Has Egypt removed tanks that Israel said were not approved? I've not seen pictures. Nor have I accessed any reports indicating such.

(Which is not to say that our protest is unimportant -- even if not heeded. Not at all. It establishes our position and sets the stage for whatever might follow next.)

Full Egyptian Rearming of the Sinai - with US Help

Shoshana Bryen..
Gatestone Institute..
20 August '12..

Egypt has moved forces into the Sinai beyond what was agreed to in the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. Getting them in wasn't that difficult – Israel agrees that security in the Sinai has deteriorated. Getting them out again later may be another matter. And how the U.S. positions itself to safeguard the treaty itself will be crucial.

One of the lesser-known American military deployments is as part of the Multinational Force & Observers in the Sinai (MFO), inserted in 1981. Its mission is to "supervise the implementation of the security provisions of the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty of Peace and employ best efforts to prevent violations of its terms." The MFO consists of 1,656 soldiers from 12 nations[1] and, according to its website, operates checkpoints, reconnaissance patrols and observation posts; verifies the continued implementation of various arms limitations in the Sinai; ensures freedom of navigation through the Strait of Tiran; and monitors the deployment of border guards along the Egyptian side of the Gaza/Egypt border to ensure that it meets the terms agreed to by Israel and Egypt in 2005.

The MFO, clearly, is not a fighting force; it is a peacekeeping force with an agreed-upon peace to keep.

So how odd it is that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has announced that the U.S. "is providing additional military assistance to peacekeeping forces in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula to strengthen security in the region."

King Mursi the First, Egypt and The Peace Agreement With Israel

Dr. Mordechai Kedar..
Middle East and Terrorism..
17 August '12..




Translated from Hebrew by Sally Zahav..

Nine months ago, in November of 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood won almost half of the seats of the Egyptian "Peoples' Council", thus translating the long-standing support of the population into a political asset of undeniable strength. This success encouraged them to contend for the presidency as well, and in June their representative - Mohammad Mursi - won this exalted office. The Supreme Military Council, the military body that had been managing affairs in Egypt since Mubarak was sent packing in February 2011, ground its teeth with rage, and the head of the Council - Field Marshall Hussein Tantawi - who was suspected of intending to remain in control until the end of his days, announced again and again that he does not intend to turn into Mubarak number 2. Despite this, there was an open rivalry between the military and the Brotherhood: on one side is an unelected body, which is powerful, violent, hated, secular, self-interested, armed, hierarchical, obedient and disciplined; and on the other hand there was an elected body, supported by the public, not violent, religious, ideological, connected to the population and perceived as the embodiment of the dream of many years.

During the past months, especially since Mursi was elected in June, Egypt seemed like a rickety cart, pulled by two horses, but each in its own direction. Each horse tries to step on the other's hoofs, trying to negate the strength of the other, despite the fact that both of them know that they are destined to pull the cart together. The Supreme Constitutional Court dispersed the parliament, thus pulling an important rug out from under the feet of the Brotherhood. The Supreme Military Council issued an order to freeze the powers of the president, but then Mursi cut off the head of the military snake, Tantawi, Commander in chief Anan, Head of General Intelligence Muaffi, and a long line of officers, "tails" of the old regime, who had been appointed by Mubarak, with one decision that appeared as if it was exploiting the attack on the Kerem Shalom Crossing two weeks ago.

As of the writing of these lines, not a word of public outcry has been heard by all of the symbols of Mubarak's regime that Mursi sent packing, and the impression that is created is that they have accepted the decision and quietly left their offices . It could be that they indeed have accepted this "boot upwards": Some of them have joined the "presidential team" as very close advisers to Mursi so that he would be able to keep an eye on their doings, and some accepted high positions in public service.

But behind the scenes a difficult struggle was being played out: In the middle of last week, President Mursi held a discussion of the Council of National Defense in his office, which dealt with the implications of the terror attack at the Kerem Shalom Crossing and with the security situation in Sinai. Mursi, Tantawi, Anan and other senior officers were all participants in this discussion, during which,Tantawi claimed that Egyptian intelligence had information on the involvement of Palestinian elements in the attack, and that Israel had paid them. Therefore - in his view - Egypt must hermetically close the Rafah Crossing, because of the threat to Egyptian national security that it poses. Mursi became enraged and said: I do not believe that a Palestinian would do this, and if you had prior information about it why did you not act appropriately? I will not permit the closing of the crossing because I don't suspect that Hamas took part in the action." Tantawi rejected the words of the president and emphasized that the Supreme Military Council had decided to close the Rafah Passage completely, and perhaps it would be opened in the distant future. "We, the military people, are in charge of that." With these words, Mursi answered sharply: "I am the high commander of the Egyptian military." The meeting dispersed after deciding to deal with the centers of terrorism in Sinai with full determination and without any sensitivity, without the "Supreme Court" or the prying eyes of human rights organizations, as is commonly done in the Arab world. Last Saturday, the president met with Tantawi and Anan, and did not reveal to them that he was about to fire them within a few hours.

Ramadan as a month of triumph. But who is the triumphant one?

"Anyone who takes the deployment of Egyptian tanks and helicopters in Sinai too lightly, regarding it as merely necessary at this point in time, may soon get slapped in the face by reality. If you think that Egypt's deployment in Sinai is intended merely to take care of Israel's Sinai terror problem, you may have to think again."

Dr. Liad Porat..
Israel Hayom..
15 August '12..

Dr. Mohammed Badie, the supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, describes the month of Ramadan in his weekly missive as a month of triumph. This begs the question, however, of who is the triumphant one, and who is the defeated one, as of today?

During the Free Officer's Revolution in Egypt in July of 1952, talks were held between the officers' leadership and the Muslim Brotherhood. Gamal Abdel Nasser Hussein, then president of Egypt, dedicated days and hours to meetings with the heads of the Brotherhood in efforts to understand their true nature and intentions. Once he was convinced that their ideological direction was contrary to his world view and posed a threat to him, Nasser sought an opportunity to strike them down.

In October of 1954, he found a way. Nasser gave a speech in Alexandria before signing an agreement that saw the withdrawal of British Armed Forces from Egypt. The speech was broadcast over transistor radios to all of Egypt, and in the background, eight shots were heard. The shots all missed the charismatic president. He immediately regained his composure, realizing that he had found the opportunity he had been waiting for. The following day, the Brotherhood was accused of having tried to assassinate the head of state; droves of Brotherhood members were arrested and thrown in jail. Thus, in one fell swoop, Nasser's regime paralyzed the Muslim Brotherhood's active and organized resistance.

The Free Officer's movement, led by the confident Nasser, ruled in Egypt for many years. It was Nasser's successor, Anwar Sadat, who later opened the prison doors and let the Brotherhood resume public activity. Sadat held a meeting at the start of his term with the imprisoned leader of the Brotherhood, and got the impression that the movement could help him establish his legitimacy. What actually happened, however, was that the creature turned on its creator: the Brotherhood, which Sadat expected to support him and to help him combat the Left and the Nasser-ites, were the ones who ultimately stripped him of his legitimacy. They did so in such a way as to encourage Sadat's eventual assassins.

Years of trying to erode the Sinai force restrictions. And now?

A warning from someone who called Morsy right from day one

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
12 August '12..




No. I am not writing this to brag.

Today, as Egyptian President Morsy got rid of the entire leadership of the Egyptian military I could most certainly be proud to note that I am one of the very few who consistently warned from day one that Morsy the chess player would move faster than all the predictions. And one of the few that didn’t embrace the narrative that Morsy was stuck honoring for the foreseeable future a delicate balance with the leaders of the Egyptian military.

But I am not writing this note to brag.

I am writing it to warn.

For years the Egyptians have been trying to erode the Sinai force restrictions set in the peace treaty they signed with Israel. Force restrictions that were a necessary condition for Israel agreeing to restore the Sinai to Egyptian control.

The Egyptians see the force restrictions as impinging on their sovereignty.

We always considered the force restrictions as critical for the Jewish State’s national security and, frankly speaking, with the Moslem Brotherhood leading Egypt, we need the force restrictions more than ever.

This evening we find ourselves with massive Egyptian forces deployed literally on our border.

Critical days with Egypt – not eroding force limits

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
09 August '12..




When you interact with a chess player you had better not think like a tic tac toe player.

And Egyptian President Mohamed Morsy is most definitely a chess player.

The decision to temporarily allow Egypt to deploy attack helicopters in Sinai very close to Israel’s border may very well be justified. But with emphasis on “temporary” and with a sincere hope that we were smart enough to formally establish just how unique the circumstances were.

Let’s be clear about the problem:

For years the Egyptians have been trying to erode the Sinai force restrictions set in the peace treaty they signed with Israel. Force restrictions that were a necessary condition for Israel agreeing to restore the Sinai to Egyptian control.

The Egyptians see the force restrictions as impinging on their sovereignty.

We always considered the force restrictions as critical for the Jewish State’s national security and, frankly speaking, with the Moslem Brotherhood leading Egypt, we need the force restrictions more than ever.

Rennert - Palestinians undermine Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
28 June '12..




The 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt has become a front-and-center issue in Israel's new relations with a Muslim Brotherhood government in Cairo.

As Washington Post correspondent Joel Greenberg writes in the June 28 edition, the ascendancy of President-Elect Mohammed Morsi has raised new questions about the future of the 1978 Camp David accords and the 1979 peace treaty -- major foreign-policy achievements of the Carter administration ("Egyptian-Israeli ties face new challenges with Islamist's election" page A9)

"Perceptions are rife in both countries that the other side has failed to honor key elements of the deal," Greenberg writes.

Given this situation, it's instructive to examine the nature of the respective complaints, which Greenberg enumerates, and their validity, which Greenberg fails to address.

Hornik - Israel's Egypt Conundrum

P.David Hornik..
American Spectator..
11 April '12..

It's now Passover week in Israel, and it's natural for Egypt to be in the air. The holiday celebrates the Israelites' liberation from serfdom to Pharaoh over three thousand years ago, which launched the trouble-fraught but ultimately successful forty-year trek to freedom in the Promised Land.

But Egypt keeps being intertwined with Israel's current affairs, too; and, just like back then, in ways that are generally difficult. As in the rocket fired last Thursday morning from Egyptian Sinai at Eilat, Israel's port and tourist center on the Red Sea. As in the explosion that hit Egypt's gas pipeline to Israel and Jordan on Monday -- the fourteenth to do so, all of them sabotage, in about a year. The pipeline, too, is in Sinai, and has been closed since a previous explosion on February 5.

It's no accident, of course, that both violent events were associated with Sinai. Since the fall of Hosni Mubarak's regime last year and the partial implosion of the Egyptian state, the peninsula has become a badlands dominated by global-jihad groups and local Bedouin gangs, some of them also ideologically jihadist. Last August a terror cell crossed into Israel from Sinai and killed eight.

In that case Israel struck back and killed the cell's leaders -- in Gaza, where they were based. But despite the growing incidents and danger, Israel -- in a somewhat Orwellian bind -- is loath to act in Sinai itself and so far has not. The reason is a fear of endangering peace -- that is, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty signed in 1979, long considered a bedrock of stability in the region.

Medad - 14 Months Late and Bibi Agrees With Caroline Glick

Yisrael Medad..
My Right Word..
06 April '12..





As reported, yesterday

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Thursday vowed to strike at those who attack Israel and said the Jewish state can never stop fighting terrorism...Netanyahu said Israel must constantly fight against those who perpetrate and plan terrorism." Israel must always fight terrorism, he continued, "It will not stop if we do not fight it." Sinai, he continued, has become a terrorism zone, something he said Israel is "dealing with." The security fence being built along the southern border will not stop missiles, but a solution for that too will be found, he said.

Last February, at the book launch of a book I edited along with the late Harry Hurwitz, Caroline Glick was one of the more critical speakers and among other things, said

Another problem with the deal that Israel made with Sadat the dictator is demonstrated by the current unrest in the Sinai...The last thing on Israel's mind in 1978 was the Bedouin tribes in the Sinai. Back then Sinai's Bedouin were pro-Israel and bitterly disappointed when Israel withdrew. But a lot has changed since then.

Rubin - Egypt’s Parliament 75 percent Islamist -

Egypt-Israel Peace Agreement is Dead Even if Treaty Still Exists

Barry Rubin..
Rubin Reports..
23 January '12..

We’re starting to get a good picture of what the lower house of Egypt’s parliament will be like, though it will take another month to be certain. Close to 50 percent of the seats will be held by the Muslim Brotherhood. Another 25 percent will be held by the al-Nour party of Salafists. With 75 percent the two Islamist parties will be able to do as they please.

But, they—or at least the Brotherhood—are determined to be cautious. Note that there is a big difference between actually being moderate and simply being patient, advancing step by step toward radical goals. The Western media will report that the Brotherhood is indeed moderate. Actually, as I review coverage over the last year it is almost impossible to find even a single article in the mass media that reports any such evidence, much less analysis, despite the massive documentation available to the contrary .

The non-Islamist seats will be held by the Wafd, nine percent, and the Free Egyptians Party, another nine percent, with the rest spread among a dozen different parties, mainly liberal with a small number of leftists. The Wafd will be willing to make deals with the Islamists in order to obtain a share of power for itself. Only the Free Egyptians will oppose them with determination.

There is no reason to believe the “moderates” will be able to work together; the Islamist parties also won’t unite. There is, however, an important difference. While the Wafd’s cooperation with the Brotherhood will undermine the ability of anti-Islamist forces doing anything at all, the Salafists will pull the Brotherhood toward a more militant stance.

IMRA - [Not a parody] Pres. Peres cites Egypt treaty - urges Israel to make deal with Palestinians before extremists make it impossible

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
15 September '11




[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

This is not a parody.

It has to be kept in mind that when President Peres says "Do not let fleeting events disrupt the future" what he means is "lets not let reality interfere with my agenda".

And this is consistent.

Because these are the three principles that Mr. Peres adheres to:

1. What happened in the past doesn't matter.

2. What the Arabs say now doesn't matter.

and finally:

3. What is happening now doesn't matter.

This is convenient for engaging in policy debate when you are in front of a friendly audience. But it is outrageous for policy making.

" I know from experience that things that seem impossible can become possible."

Yes. It seemed impossible that we would find ourselves facing missiles from Gaza slamming into Ashdod.]

COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF ISRAEL

Wednesday, 14 September 2011

President Shimon Peres during a speech to the residents in the communities near Gaza marking 60 years to the Eshkol Regional Council:

"We must do everything in order to quickly begin direct negotiations with the Palestinians. I know from experience that things that seem impossible can become possible."

"In spite of the firing of missiles you quietly absorb the fear for your children's safety and the danger in your communities and fields. You continue to move forward and this is the full force of Zionism, in all of its glory."

President Shimon Peres delivered the keynote address at the 60th anniversary
celebration of the Eshkol Regional Council bordering Gaza. The President referred to the peace process saying: "The fate of Israel is dependent on its justness and strength. The justice of self-defense, and the strength to make peace, even during times of crisis. The shutters of extremism have closed on many windows in our region. The shutter of peace with the Palestinians is still open. We have to approach it before the clouds of extremism cover it. We must do everything in order to quickly begin direct negotiations with the Palestinians. I know from experience that things that seem impossible can become possible."

The President added: "I believe that we will find a peaceful solution with our Palestinian neighbors, one of two free states living peacefully - even if it requires considerable patience. A positive outcome is better than turmoil and instability.

The President recalled the peace with Egypt and said: "We signed a peace treaty with Egypt, the largest and most important of Arab states. For the past 30 years - there were no wars between us. The lives of hundreds of thousands of young people were spared. When we signed the peace treaty both of our peoples said: 'No more war, no more bloodshed.' This is true today as well. We must rise up from the violence and poverty. The future requires this of us, our youth and your youth demand it. Do not let fleeting events disrupt the future. We will respect the past, and let our youth respect the future."
______________________________________________________

For more information:

Ayelet Frish - Media Adviser to President Peres - 050-620-5111

Mitchell Barak - Foreign Media Coordinator - 052-404-6600

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Egypt’s Renegotiation Threat

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contentions
03 March '11

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/03/egypt%E2%80%99s-renegotiation-threat/

Yesterday, I discussed Israel’s reasons for fearing that the current Arab revolutions could produce even worse regimes. But what if, against all odds, genuine Arab democracies do emerge? In the long run, that’s clearly good for Israel. But in the short run, all signs indicate that the first casualty of Arab democracy may well be Egypt’s peace with Israel — because so far, Egypt’s opposition has been unanimous in demanding that the treaty be either scrapped entirely or “renegotiated” out of existence.

As Jonathan noted, even Ayman Nour, who heads a liberal, secular, democratic party, is demanding the treaty’s renegotiation; that demand has been widely echoed. The veteran secular opposition group Kifaya has long demanded its abrogation, as has the Muslim Brotherhood, which reiterated this just last month. Presidential contender Mohammed ElBaradei effectively conditioned the treaty’s continuance on establishment of a Palestinian state — an impossible demand given that the Palestinians still refuse even to sit in the same room with Israeli negotiators. And so forth.

And while “renegotiating” the treaty may sound less threatening than scrapping it altogether, it isn’t. For the two items most Egyptians want to renegotiate are precisely those that made the treaty viable for Israel: one essential to its economic security, and one to its physical security.

Let’s start with the less important one: Egypt supplies almost all of Israel’s oil and natural gas, and this is highly unpopular. Israel’s own recently discovered reserves can eventually replace Egyptian natural gas. But for oil, Israel has no obvious alternative supplier: No other regional producer will sell to it, while buying through middlemen or distant suppliers like Russia is both more expensive and less reliable, with potentially severe economic consequences. Hence Israel never would have ceded Sinai’s oilfields without promise of a steady Egyptian supply.

But energy is minor compared to Egyptians’ other gripe with the treaty: the demilitarization of Sinai, on which Israel’s defense depends. From northern Sinai, Egyptian tanks could reach Tel Aviv or Jerusalem in a few hours — not nearly enough time for Israel to mobilize its reserves. And since Israel’s standing army is minuscule compared with Egypt’s, its entire defense strategy depends on mobilizing the reserves.

If Egyptian forces are allowed to mass in northern Sinai once again, Israel will be right back where it was pre-1967: facing military annihilation at any moment. Hence Israel would never have ceded Sinai without the demilitarization agreement.

Moreover, Egypt’s army is incomparably better equipped now, after three decades of massive American aid, than it was during the last Israeli-Egyptian war. And it still trains almost exclusively for war against Israel.

“Renegotiation” is thus a euphemism for gutting the treaty of everything that made it viable for Israel. As such, it’s worse than abrogation, since for that, Egypt would be blamed. But if Israel refused to amend the treaty, a world chronically unsympathetic to its security needs would blame it for failing to support Egypt’s fledgling democracy.

Still, would a democratic Egypt really declare war on Israel? Given how rampant anti-Israel sentiment is there, it’s hardly inconceivable. After all, a democratic government must satisfy its voters, yet it will be hard-pressed to produce growth and jobs quickly enough to do so. Playing the anti-Israel card may thus strike any government as the only solution.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.