What Egypt means by 'renegotiating' Camp David
Evelyn Gordon explains what the Egyptians mean by 'renegotiating' the Camp David treaty and what that so troubles Israelis. 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.Read the whole thing.
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.
Labels: Egyptian regime change, Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, Sinai, Wikileaks
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 11:17 AM
3 Comments:
There is no chance any Israeli government will agree to allow the treaty to be re-negotiated to Egypt's advantage. Israel gave up the Sinai and Taba - for a cold peace.
If Egypt wants to re-open talks, Israel should demand a corridor of Sinai extending roughly from El Arish to Sharm El Sheikh.
The Egyptians would be sure to reject such an Israeli demand but if they don't like the terms on which they made peace with Israel in the first place, then Israel too, has every right to bring up new demands of its own at the table.
I don't think cooler heads in Cairo really want to go there.
Israel should never really have returned Sinai to Egypt, though admittedly I don't know the extent of the logistical difficulties in maintaining a permanent IDF presence there. Perhaps it might be necessary to re-occupy the territory, or part of it, if a new Egyptian administration does revoke that section of the existing treaty. What is certain is that Israel must take whatever steps necessary for its defence, especially now that it is threatened by Iran's Islamofascist proxies in Lebanon (40,000 missiles in Hezbollah's hands)and Gaza.
On the other hand (and I have not yet read the whole article), the Egyptian military now uses US equipment.
Engaging in any war would require US cooperation for resupply, parts, repairs and maintenance. This would deter Egypt from military action against Israel in the short term - provided the US (Obama) does not go Caliphate on Israel's a**.
Post a Comment
<< Home