Israel has told Egypt that Israel wants the removal of Egypt's tanks and aircraft from the Sinai Peninsula because their continued presence violates the 1979 peace agreement between the two countries.
According to that treaty, the Sinai was supposed to remain demilitarized by both sides as a buffer.
The message from the Israeli government was sent via the White House, because of the severely weakened relationship between the two countries since the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. The White House is also thought to have leverage with the Egyptians because of the vital $1.3 billion per year the U.S. supplies Egypt with in military aid.
In spite of the message from the U.S.,so far the Egyptian government is claiming publicly it has not received any communication from the Israelis. Israeli officials say they have made their objections known to the Egyptians directly.
Earlier this month, the Israelis agreed to an Egyptian troop buildup in the Sinai for basic security purposes after an attack by al-Qaeda linked terrorists at the beginning of August on an Egyptian border post, which left 16 border guards dead.
That incident ended after the terrorists commandeered an armored vehicle and crashed it through the border into Israel, where it was intercepted by Israeli forces.
However, the Egyptians have continued their military buildup in Sinai far beyond what was originally agreed to, without coordinating it with Israel.
The 'modification' (read 'scrapping') of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty has been a goal frequently expressed by Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood leaders, including the current President Mohammed Morsi.
The Israelis are concerned that the earlier raid is being used by Egypt as an excuse to re-militarize the Sinai.Even during the Mubarak regime, the Egyptian military has always conducted its war games exercises with Israel as its presumed enemy.
The current buildup includes anti-aircraft missiles and launchers that are obviously not intended to fight terrorists in the Sinai.
Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman was quite explicit on the matter:
"We have to be insistent with the Egyptians and be strict about crossing every last 't,' because otherwise we will be on a slippery slope with regards to everything related to the peace agreement," Lieberman said.
It will be interesting to see how the Egyptians respond to this. My guess is they won't, and will continue the military build up in Sinai.
A final remark in passing for those who still swallow the 'land for peace' nonsense...in this part of the world, only losers give up territory.
Israel's ceding the Sinai to Egypt in 1979 was looked at in exactly that way by the Egyptians. It was seen as proof of what the Egyptian government told their people after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and continue to tell them - that it was Egypt, not Israel that had won the war.
3 comments:
The White House is also thought to have leverage with the Egyptians because of the vital $1.3 billion per year the U.S. supplies Egypt with in military aid.
and just what leverage would that be?
please do tell us?
would they be talking about sec. of state klebb's by-passing a congressional hold on funds?
is that the leverage?
because as i see it the MB doesn't give a shit about getting the money. they will tell their lackey in the white house to send it and he will do it.
Hi Louie,
I think what's going on here is that the Obama Administration, at least for now, wants quiet.
Our bases at Bahrain and Djibouti (and to an extent, Afghanistan) are supplied via the Suez Canal, and a certain amount of the Persian Gulf oil also heads to Europe that way.
The MB likewise wants quiet as they complete their takeover of Egypt.
What will probably happen is that the aid will keep coming, the Suez Canal will stay open, the Egyptians will continue their military buildup in Sinai so that the 'treaty' is essentially a dead issue and the Israelis will get screwed again like they did prior to '67.
But it won't be for some time yet, because Egypt cannot afford a war. The country is bankrupt. And in the meantime, Israel has other felafel to fry, if you get my drift.
Next time, if war breaks out, perhaps the Israelis will have learned to hang on to the Sinai and not give up a valuable strategic asset for a piece of paper and a few promises.
Regards,
Rob
"Next time, if war breaks out, perhaps the Israelis will have learned to hang on to the Sinai and not give up a valuable strategic asset for a piece of paper and a few promises." I whoelheartedly agree. If Israel had held onto the Sinai after the 1956 war or after the 1973 war, then an American ally would have held this strategic asset. In this case, perhaps we could have saved billions in blackmail that we've had to pay to Egypt over many years to keep open the Suez Canal for the reasons you mention above.
Hopefully the US will have learned by now not to try and pressure Israel to do this as it has in the past going all the back to the Eisenhower Administration the 1950s. We are still paying for the monumental incompetence of Mr. Eisenhower and his team today. Mt. Eisenhower may have been a great general during WWII but he was one of the worst presidents in Aemrican history. Perhaps if Israel had not made concessions back in 1956 the wars in 1967 and 1973 could have been avoided.
Would America have given up California, New Mexico, Arizona and other lands captured from Mexico during the Mexican American war for a piece of paper and a few promises? I think not!! Why should someone expect Israel to do such a thing?
Post a Comment