Changes are caused by the changes in Cairo
Reader comment on: Egypt Fully Remilitarizing Sinai - with US Help
Submitted by Jerry Blaz (United States), Aug 22, 2012 18:55
I would believe that the priority Israel gives to the Sinai is indicated in the pace of completing the fence between Sinai and the Negev from the Gaza to the Red Sea, a distance of around 233 kilometers, if my memory serves me right. It has been years in its construction, and only the changes in Cairo gave the fence construction some impetus. Since the changes in Cairo, there have been around 15-16 times when the pipeline delivering gas to Israel and Jorden has been bombed, depriving Israel and Jorden with gas and depriving Egypt of income plus the costs or rebuilding the pipeline each time. Sinai (largely thanks to the former occupation of the territory by Israel) has become a tourist attraction for Egypt, with beach, swimming, boating, diving and many other attractions at Taba and at Sharm ash-Sheikh.
Recently, Sinai had become a passage to Israel by African refugees and jobseekers who paid the native Bedouin Arabs to bring them safely through the Sinai desert, and then Israelis began to object because of social problems that arose. Now they are trying to figure out what to do with the 60,000 or so Africans from many countries.
The infiltration of jihadists into the Sinai, who are able to pay the Bedouins to help them and even to participate in actions, was the latest problem to occur in Egypt. After they killed 16 Egyptian soldiers, creating great problems locally for President Mohammed Morsi, he realized he had to control the Sinai with armed forces. In coordination with the Israeli government, he introduced greater numbers of police and army with armor. According to some reports, the Israelis are having second thoughts of having Egyptian tanks so close to Israel. While it is in the northern part of the Sinai that the refugees traveled, the pipeline was bombed, and most of the jihadist actions have occurred there, putting the entire Sinai is at risk. Yet it give the town of El Arish on the Mediterannean coast that is of most importance both to the Egyptians and the jihadists.
Egypt has placed stronger controls on the border between Gaza and Egypt because they are convinced that Gaza is the source of the jihadists. There is no doubt that the two sides are going to have to consider what steps they must take to pacify the Sinai and keep the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in force.
Note: Reader comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. Gatestone Institute reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable. Reader comments, including the one above, represent solely the opinion or viewpoint of the readers that submitted them and do not represent the opinion or viewpoint of Gatestone Institute. Gatestone Institute takes no responsibility for the content of reader comments.
Other reader comments on this item
|⇒ Changes are caused by the changes in Cairo [401 words]||Jerry Blaz||Aug 22, 2012 18:55|
|Now Obama scrapes Camp David [72 words]||Art||Aug 22, 2012 07:55|
|Israel mustn't allow Egypt to unilaterally void obligations to their own advantage [99 words]||Raymond in DC||Aug 20, 2012 22:55|
|Trust and confidence [236 words]||Hans||Aug 20, 2012 18:10|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz