The Necessity of Pushing Egypt Back in the Sinai

The attack in to Israel which came by way of Gaza terrorists infiltrating from the Sinai indicates the true state of affairs in Egypt – a significant part of Egyptian authority is willing to aid terrorist attacks against Israel.  This new fact by itself nullifies the Israel-Egypt peace treaty – we’re essentially back to 1967.

The proper response by the Israelis would be to push the Egyptians back from the Gaza and Israeli borders – at least 25 miles so as to put southern Israel out of easy rocket/terrorist range.  This would also allow a complete sealing off of Gaza and that would eventually result in the terrorists in Gaza running out of ammunition.

Remember, the Israelis gave up the Sinai in order to have peace with Egypt – unless the southern border of Israel is 100% secure against attack, there is no reason for Israel to stay out of the Sinai.  And it is better to act now than wait for the Egyptian government to move major military forces in to the area.

About these ads

24 thoughts on “The Necessity of Pushing Egypt Back in the Sinai

  1. Green Mountain Boy

    Does anyone think the Israeli border will ever be 100% secure against attck? Hezballah already has rockets that can reach south of Tel Aviv. They will never be safe and the Isrealis only have to loose once.

    Until the muzzies are utterly humiliated in the style of nazi germany and imperial japan it will nothing but a endless series of small wars. Happy day.

  2. bardolf

    “This new fact by itself nullifies the Israel-Egypt peace treaty – we’re essentially back to 1967.” – Mark

    Who is the WE in ” we are essentially …” ?

    1. Leonard L'Farte

      I would read that as a collective “we”, as in Israel and her primary ally, the United States. How would you interpret it?

      1. bardolf

        So you read it as JUST the United States and Israel. That’s what I expected but I was hoping Mark might be including e.g. Western Europe in the we.

    2. Green Mountain Boy

      Bardolf, I know this might go against your academic standards but why don’t you try and and answer your own question on this one? Who does Bardolf think “we” are?

      1. bardolf

        GMB

        Israel has nuclear capabilities. The US is involved in several Middle East wars. I think things are vastly different than 1967.

        While ‘we’ are worried about Libya and Syria there are 400,000 people dying in Somalia. I wonder why ‘we’ don’t discuss that on B4V. ” Bunch of Muslims get what they deserve” mentality I suppose.

      2. Green Mountain Boy

        Nice dodge there Bardolf.
        What are “we” supposed to do about somalia. Is the United States not already the largest supplier of food aid to somalia? You want American troops on the ground there?

        What does Bardolf propose we do in somalia?

      3. bardolf

        GMB

        No dodging about Israel, 2011 isn’t 1967.

        As for Somalia, the whole worry-about-world opinion sometimes yes sometimes no is horrible. If you have an operation you go in with overwhelming force and destroy the bad guys and leave.

        If we are pretending to be the world cop (in Libya, Syria, …) I would be in favor of just rolling into Somalia with food for the poor, if someone gets in the way of that delivery we shoot them dead. Rinse, repeat.

        I think ground troops when hundreds of thousands or millions of people might die are much more justifiable than e.g. in Libya.

      4. Green Mountain Boy

        R2P? Really now Bardolf. Your red colored slip is beginning to show. Get us out of astan and iraq and libya and get us in to somalia!! yae!!!

        The United States did not create that mess in Somalia. The Italians did. It is thier former colony. Let the Italians clean it up. BTW that also applies to libya.

      5. bardolf

        GMB

        Your solution is at least consistent. I was simply saying among all the police type operations saving a couple hundred thousand people seems the most humanitarian. I have to say it’s hard to watch some of these humongous disasters and not try to seek a solution. OTOH it’s a devil’s calculus as to how many U.S. soldiers are worth how many lives in country X when the rest of the world doesn’t care.

        You are exactly right with regard to Italy and Europe in general. That’s what I meant with respect to Mogadishu. Someone makes a mess and then when the US wanted to bring the heavy, the same people who made the mess are criticizing from the sidelines about how to conduct the operations. Don’t use TOO much firepower to kill the bad guys …

      6. Green Mountain Boy

        I must have missed something. Bardolf are you for or against unilateral American military action? Under what circumstaces? I think you are going to critsize any action or inaction just for poops an giggles.

        You are a hard fellow to understand. Please lay out the Principles of Bardolfs foriegn policy.

    3. Saul Sooth

      As Jimmy Carter signed in witness to the 1967 Camp David accord, As the United Nations Forces were committed in perpetuity in the 1967 Camp David accord, as the United States through the President, and through the United Nations are committed within the framework and by signing creating a legal contract; “we” is us.

      1. Sparkly

        Well, yeah, as long as the accord is not considered a “living document”. Are you trying to imply that we as a nation should be bound by our official, legal, commitments?

      2. Gidney N. Kloid

        Since neither the Constitution nor a duly authorized treaty are anything other than legal contracts “we” are bound to the terms unless we agree to no longer be bound to either in the legal manner.

        Of course, if either were actually living we could just choke the life out of them and move on.

      3. Fell the Fang

        The life of that document has been pretty much been chocked dead already. A president that wont obey it and an a republican leadership that wont do anything about it.

        Am I wrong?

      4. Green Mountain Boy

        Don’t be intenionally thick. I am sure he meant 1978-79 Camp David Peace Accords.

  3. js

    the recent attacks should be considered an act of war…the arabs in gaza, and thier affiliates in egypt…would think long and hard if they knew the price of thier actions would result in the complete loss of the gaza territory…enough is enough…the frauds who call themselve palestinians have no right to attack anyone in israel…period…if our neighbor here in america did the same thing…we would have multiple divisions at the border and air strikes within minutes against the aggressor…israel cannot be denied the same right to defend its borders and people…

    its like clint eastwood….make my day….

    1. js

      with egypt in turmoil…there would no better time than now…to evict every non israeli from gaza and drive them into the sinai…good riddence…

      then turn your attention to what happens in the west bank and south lebanon

      1. Green Mountain Boy

        Don’t the Israelis threw the South Lebanese under the bus to make “peace”. That worked out pretty good didn’t it?

  4. LibertyAtStake

    Makes sense tactically. Strategically, it feels like an excuse for the Islamists to launch a coordinated attack on all fronts. Bibi should temporarily keep his powder dry. Until events further evolve … at which point this idea is top 3 operations in the tactical plan.

    d(^_^)b
    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

    1. neocon1

      Hell Ochimpy wont even secure OUR borders and we are going to enforce borders half a workd away??????
      Bwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaa Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

      Somalia = detroit. LA, NYC, NO etc ….NEXT!!

Comments are closed.