Egyptian PM: Peace With Israel “Not Sacred”

From the Jerusalem Post:

Egypt’s Prime Minister Essam Sharaf said a peace deal with Israel was not “sacred” and could be changed for the benefit of peace or the region.

His comments, made in an interview with a Turkish television channel and broadcast on state television, were the strongest yet by the new government which took over after president Hosni Mubarak was overthrown in February.

“The Camp David agreement is not a sacred thing and is always open to discussion with what would benefit the region and the case of fair peace … and we could make a change if needed,” he said in the interview…

My suggestion to Israel is that they re-open the “discussion” of peace by pushing the Egyptians out of the Sinai.  When you’ve got them by the privates, it is said, hearts and minds will follow…the Suez Canal is one of Egypt’s few money-makers and Israeli control of it might remind Egypt’s government of just why the Sadat regime sought a peace treaty in 1979.

Israel is in her most difficult position since just prior to the 1967 war – rising Islamism; Turkish hostility (it looks as though the Turks are asserting themselves for the Palestinians in order to forestall Iranian efforts…but, no matter, it still works out bad for Israel); threat of Iranian nukes…and a US government which actually believes that Israeli/American actions are the cause of the conflict (instead of it really being nothing more than a manufactured issue by Islamic leaders who want a short cut to personal power and wealth…and scapegoating Jews is just easy).  Israel had to both tread carefully but at the same time be willing to act with lightening speed to disrupt the Islamists.

Right now, those Islamsits are looking forward to re-starting the war with Israel – confronting Israel with massive terrorist attacks from the West Bank, Gaza, Sinai and southern Lebanon.  Israel, caught between four fires, will be terribly vulnerable.  Better if one or more of the fires could be put out before it gets started.  As Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank is impractical (ties down too many Israeli units in occupation duty), the logical place to strike is in the Sinai…minimal Egyptian civil popualtion to control, it cuts off Gaza (thus putting that fire out) and would allow the IDF to concentrate on south Lebanon and the West bank with their southern and western fronts secure.

The worst thing Israel can do is just hunker down – MacArthur was once asked his formula for defensive war.  His answer?  “Defeat”.  Sitting there and waiting for the terrorists to strike won’t help…better a spoiling attack against them, throwing their plane in to confusion and allowing Israel a breathing space until a new American government comes to power…hopefully one with a more realistic understanding of the Islamists.

20 thoughts on “Egyptian PM: Peace With Israel “Not Sacred”

  1. David September 16, 2011 / 10:07 pm

    So you think Israel should avoid war by attacking another country? How would you respond if Egypt invaded Israel “to defend itself?”

    • Mark Edward Noonan September 17, 2011 / 12:43 am


      This is the key provision of the Camp David accord as it relates to the Sinai:

      No more than one division (mechanized or infantry) of Egyptian armed forces will be stationed within an area lying approximately 50 km. (30 miles) east of the Gulf of Suez and the Suez Canal.

      Only United Nations forces and civil police equipped with light weapons to perform normal police functions will be stationed within an area lying west of the international border and the Gulf of Aqaba, varying in width from 20 km. (12 miles) to 40 km. (24 miles)…

      This, in effect, de-militarized the Sinai – that Egyptian division allowed east of Suez is a symbolic affirmation of Egyptian sovereignty over the Sinai but is in no way a sufficient force to prevent an Israeli invasion of the Sinai. The border area, itself, is held by nothing more than a police force which could be brushed aside by a couple Israeli regiments…and then follow-on armored divisions could reach Suez within 24-48 hours, long before strong Egyptian forces could cross Suez (especially in the face of Israeli air power) to contest an Israeli advance. This was all done because Israel is a tiny nation of no strategic depth…though it wasn’t intended as such, the Sinai became that strategic depth after the 1967 war, as was demonstrated during the Yom Kippur war when the Israelis were able to give ground in the Sinai to build up their reserves and counter-attack the Egyptians. The key to Israeli-Egyptian peace was, indeed, “land for peace”…but the Israelis also insisted upon, and got, the strategic depth the Sinai provided…by barring large, Egyptian forces from the area.

      If the Egyptian government is now to assume that the provisions of the treaty are “open to discussion” then so is the provision requiring Israeli withdrawal. Israel cannot afford to wait and see what Egypt will do…if Egypt moves two or three more divisions in to the Sinai and, worse then moves them close to the Israeli border, then Israel be within an ace of destruction at all times. For all the Israeli military prowess, the fact remains that a really determined Egyptian assault would eventually crush Israel by sheer weight of numbers….unless the Egyptian army can be kept far enough away and be placed in a killing field. Common sense dictates, at this moment, a surprise Israeli assault in to the Sinai to make the Suez the border…ensuring southern Israel against both terrorist and conventional attack…and forcing the new Egyptian government, if they want the Sinai back, to re-negotiate the “land for peace” treaty.

      This is, I know, shocking to our sensibilities…but it is the way of the world. And the sooner the Israeli government steels itself to the necessary action, the faster we can impart some rationality in to Islamist actions.

      • Cory September 17, 2011 / 1:11 am

        Let me run this back by you. Egypt gets mad because Isreal kills 5 of their security forces in a raid and starts grumbling about possibly trying to re-negotiate the peace treaty to allow for additional manpower to police the area, and that’s enough cause for Israel to invade Egypt?

        I guess I should stop getting in any sort of heated discussion with you. I’m scared you’ll think the proper response is to come murder me in my sleep.

      • David September 17, 2011 / 1:26 am

        Gah, this is the third time I’m trying to write a response. Let me just start off by saying I hate Internet Explorer.

        Second, Mark, thank you for the detailed response! 🙂

        I agree with you that there is strategic value to your idea. What I’m really concerned with are the moral implications of preemptive war. You write as if Egypt is threatening to invade any minute. But there’s no evidence of that. Given the fact that we’ve already seen preemptive war from the US (Israel’s closest ally), and there is constant discussion of Israeli military action without moral critique, I think you could make the argument that the Egyptians are also really worried about an invasion. Should Egypt stage a preemptive attack because of this? God no!

        Also, the article is a bit misleading. It says the PM said a peace deal was not sacred. This makes it sound like he’s OK with no peace agreement! But this is clearly not what he meant when you read the actual quotation. He is saying specifically the Camp David agreement can be renegotiated, and the article even states later that this might be happening behind the scenes.

        Finally, I’d like to point out that Egypt is in a state of civil unrest as we all know, so politicians are likely to amp up the rhetoric to appeal to the population. This could be nothing more than a meaningless talkng point.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 17, 2011 / 3:52 pm


        There is, though, ample evidence that Egyptian security forces are turning a blind eye to terrorist activities in the Sinai, even if they aren’t abetting them. Meanwhile, a far more Islamist – and perhaps Muslim Brotherhood – government will emerge after the elections. Turkey is joining the anti-Israel chorus and is courting support in Egypt. It is a highly unstable and inflammable situation. It is not at the crisis point, yet…but to wait and see and hope that the Egyptians will prove reasonable might amount to national suicide for Israel. Better to strike hard and fast and then re-negotiate from a position of strength.

        My biggest fear is that the Turks and the Egyptians are seeing the best way to cement Sunni Islam unity is with Jewish blood. They might be perceiving an unwillingness on the part of Israel to fight, a softening of American support…and the Turks and Egyptians are fearful of Iran’s coming nuclear weapons and want a unified Sunni world to confront it. The Turks and Egyptians may be miscalculating … but plenty of wars have been started when one side read the signs all wrong and foolishly let loose the dogs of war (and this, by the way, is the reason why we should have taken out Iran’s nuclear facilities years ago…and should still attack them, today).

        Because Israel so badly beat the Arabs in the past, people have a massively over-inflated idea of Israeli strength. Israel has about 1.5 million men fit for military service and 62,000 reaching military age each year. Egypt, alone, has 18 million men fit for service, and 783,000 reaching military age each year. In a long war of attrition Israel would be destroyed…and given that Israel has nuclear weapons, we can presume that when they finally did go down, they would end up taking most of the Muslim world with them. The lives of hundreds of millions are at stake…and one of the easiest and swiftest ways to safety is via an Israeli offensive.

        The morality of it, for me, resolves itself in to a question of losing a small number of lives right now, or a very large number later.

      • David September 17, 2011 / 9:26 pm

        Your whole argument is premised on all muslims being:
        1) Crazy
        2) In cahoots with each other

        The muslim world is not monolithic and has many subtle and complex interests and needs. It does not all come down to destroying Israel. In fact, the Arab league has state that Israel has a right to exist within the 1967 borders. In fact, pretty much the entire world supports the Arab League’s proposed compromise except two countries.

        I’m not even going to comment on number 1.

        Turkey is not expelling the Israel ambassador because they want to unite with other Sunnis. They’re expelling him because Israel murdered 9 Turkish citizens and refuses to take any responsibility for that action.

        As for “terrorist activity” in the Sinai, that may be a problem for Israel, but it does not indicate a coming invasion from Egypt.

        It’s interesting that you think the nuclear weapons mean nothing until the end of a war. You don’t think someone contemplating invasion would be a little worried about their capital being vaporized? Israel has the second most sophisticated military in the world and is backed by the first. The idea that there’s going to be some showdown in the near future has very little evidence to support it.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 2:56 pm


        I can only go by the facts as known – Muslim nations are governed under barbaric laws and cannot secure justice for non-Muslims. This is universal…whether it is a kingdom, dictatorship or Islamic republic. Even those Muslims who are well-disposed towards us simply cannot or will not see the need to accord their non-Muslim fellow citizens full rights. Until this attitude changes in Islam we simply have to deal with it.

      • David September 18, 2011 / 6:31 pm

        You’re right: the Muslim world is behind everyone else in freedom for anyone who isn’t male and Muslim. That is not evidence that they’re going to invade Israel.

  2. js September 16, 2011 / 11:17 pm

    take the sinai and make it a home for the arabs in gaza…then kick them out of gaza…hmmm…reparations paid 110%

    • David September 16, 2011 / 11:46 pm

      So you’re advocating ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip. Classy.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 17, 2011 / 12:47 am


        Some times exchanges of population do happen – the Greeks being forced out of Turkey at the conclusion of the Greco-Turkish war of the 1920’s; the Germans being forced out of Silesia, East Prussia and the Sudetenland after World War two. It isn’t unheard of – some times peoples cannot live in peace with one another. My preferred solution is the “two State” solution…but if the Palestinian leadership will never seriously engage in peace talks and keeps up the drumbeat of “liberating” Israel…then it may come to such an exchange of populations.

      • David September 17, 2011 / 12:58 am

        I understand what you’re saying, but this isn’t really an exchange. The Sinai is land that Israel would take forcefully in the described circumstances so that they could expel the inhabitants of Gaza and annex the strip. So Israel loses nothing in this “agreement,” Egypt loses Sinai, and the Palestinians lose Gaza.

      • Cory September 17, 2011 / 1:13 am

        At this point, I’m pretty sure the plurality of evidence indicates that Isreal, rather than Palestine, has been the party that “will never seriously engage in peace talks”.

      • js September 17, 2011 / 8:25 am

        its not cheesy…you just dont have the ability to understand what righteous warfare is all about…like a fool and a retard…you generate images of “ethnic cleansing”…ignorant of the intent of most islamists in the region who believe whole heartedly that they need to attack and destroy israel as a part of islams edict to force the return of the madhi….

        i know…you learned to play with words at a very young age…but the truth is…your reprobate mind can only be cured by Jesus…and you aint’ talkin to him…

        ohh welll

      • js September 17, 2011 / 8:27 am

        the sinai was returned as a part of an act of faith…break the faith…void the agreement…and lose the sinai….israel has full right to it if egypt renegs on its agreement executed under international law

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 17, 2011 / 4:02 pm


        I would have them lose a bit more than that – the Muslim Palestinians have already been engaged in “ethnic cleansing” the Christian population of the West Bank. Bethlehem was 60% Christian in 1990, today it is 15% Christian…this, by the way, lays aside any complaints any Muslim can ever make about being forced off land. What I want is to return the Christian population to the Bethlehem area…I would carve out a strip of land running south to southwest of Jerusalem, including Bethlehem and its immediate hinterland, and set that up as an independent, Christian State.

        The hard fact of life is that no non-Muslim can obtain justice under Muslim rule…and so how we’re going to finally settle things in that area will be dependent not upon wishful thinking, but upon the hard realities of life.

      • Cory September 17, 2011 / 8:30 pm

        A 2006 poll of Bethlehem’s Christians conducted by the Palestinian Centre for Research and Cultural Dialogue, found that 90% reported having Muslim friends, 73.3% agreed that the Palestinian National Authority treats Christian heritage in the city with respect and 78% attributed the ongoing exodus of Christians from Bethlehem to the Israeli travel restrictions in the area.

        That sure sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.

      • Mark Edward Noonan September 18, 2011 / 2:54 pm


        Let’s see – the Palestinian Centre for Research and Cultural Dialogue would never dream of fudging the numbers to make themselves look good and the Israelis look bad. Definitely, such an organization would be honest as the day is long and never a hint of bias.

        As it turns out, one of my friends is a Palestinian Christian who, with his whole family, left the West Bank because they had no future there. To be sure, there is no love lost between Palestinian Christians and the Israelis, but the fact of the matter is that it is Muslims who are forcing the Christian population to leave the West Bank..and not just the West Bank, but all lands controlled by Muslims.

        Muslims routinely prove themselves incapable of providing justice for non-Muslims while also routinely proving themselves willing to ethnically cleanse non-Muslims. Given this, the ultimate solution will probably involve some population transfers as well as setting up non-Muslim nations carved out of currently Muslim-ruled areas…just recently happened in South Sudan (my view is that along with South Sudan we should create independent, non-Muslim republics in south Egypt, south Lebanon and Assyria).

      • cory September 18, 2011 / 4:32 pm


        The survey was actually commissioned and republished by Open Bethlehem, an organization sponsored by the Diocese of Los Angeles and Episcopal News. Definitely sounds like some sort of evil Muslim front organization.

        But by all means, don’t let facts get in the way of your unreasoned bigotry.

Comments are closed.