August 30, 2011, 5:24 AM
| Comments (10) | | |
 |
| |  |
Will the Egyptian military be permitted to remilitarize the Sinai? Since Palestinian and Egyptian terrorists crossed into Israel from Sinai on August 18 and murdered eight Israelis this has been a central issue under discussion at senior echelons of the government and the IDF.
Under the terms of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, Egypt is prohibited from deploying military forces in the Sinai. Israel must approve any Egyptian military mobilization in the area. Today, Egypt is asking to permanently deploy its forces in the Sinai. Such a move requires an amendment to the treaty.
Supported by the Obama administration, the Egyptians say they need to deploy forces in the Sinai in order to rein in and defeat the jihadist forces now running rampant throughout the peninsula. Aside from attacking Israel, these jihadists have openly challenged Egyptian governmental control over the territory.
So far the Israeli government has given conflicting responses to the Egyptian request. Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Economist last week that he supports the deployment of Egyptian forces. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he would consider such deployment but that Israel should not rush into amending the peace treaty with Egypt.
Saturday Barak tempered his earlier statement, claiming that no decision had been made about Egyptian deployment in the Sinai.
The government's confused statements about Egyptian troop deployments indicate that at a minimum, the government is unsure of the best course of action. This uncertainty owes in large part to confusion about Egypt's intentions.
Egypt's military leaders do have an interest in preventing jihadist attacks on Egyptian installations and other interests in the Sinai. But does that interest translate into an interest in defending Israeli installations and interests? If the interests overlap, then deploying Egyptian forces may be a reasonable option. If Egypt's military leaders view these interests as mutually exclusive, then Israel has no interest in such a deployment.
ISRAEL'S CONFUSION over Egypt's strategic direction and interests echoes its only recently abated confusion over Turkey's strategic direction in the aftermath of the Islamist AKP Party's rise to power in 2002. Following the US's lead, despite Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's hostile rhetoric regarding Israel, Israel continued to believe that he and his government were interested in maintaining Turkey's strategic alliance with Israel. That belief began unraveling with Erdogan's embrace of Hamas in January 2006 and his willingness to turn a blind eye to Iranian use of Turkish territory to transfer arms to Hezbollah during the war in July and August 2006.
Still, due to US support for Erdogan, Israel continued to sell Turkey arms until last year. Israel only recognized that Turkey had transformed itself from a strategic ally into a strategic enemy after Erdogan sponsored the terror flotilla to Gaza in May 2010.
As was the case with Turkey under Erdogan, Israel's confusion over Egypt's intentions has nothing to do with the military rulers' behavior. Like Erdogan, the Egyptian junta isn't sending Israel mixed signals.
Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was never a strategic ally to Israel the way that Turkey was before Erdogan. However, Mubarak believed that maintaining a quiet border with Israel, combating the Muslim Brotherhood and keeping Hamas at arm's length advanced his interests. Mubarak's successors in the junta do not perceive their interests in the same way.
To the contrary, since they overthrew Mubarak in February, the generals ruling Egypt have made clear that their interest in cultivating ties with Israel's enemies - from Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood - far outweighs their interest in maintaining a cooperative relationship with Israel.
From permitting Iranian naval ships to traverse the Suez Canal for the first time in 30 years to opening the border with Hamas-ruled Gaza to its openly hostile and conspiratorial reaction to the August 18 terrorist attack on Israel from the Sinai, there can be little doubt about the trajectory of Egypt's relations with Israel.
BUT JUST as was the case with Turkey - and again, largely because of American pressure - Israel's leaders are wary of accepting that the strategic landscape of our relationship with Egypt has changed radically and that the rules that applied under Mubarak no longer apply.
After Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, terrorists in Gaza and Sinai took down the border. Gaza was immediately flooded with sophisticated armaments. Then-prime minister Ariel Sharon made a deal with Mubarak to deploy Egyptian forces to the Sinai to rebuild the border and man the crossing point at Rafah. While there were problems with the agreement, given the fact that Mubarak shared Israel's interests, the move was not unjustified.
Today this is not the case. The junta wants to permanently deploy forces to the Sinai and consequently is pushing to amend the treaty. The generals' request comes against the backdrop of populist calls from across Egypt's political spectrum demanding the cancellation of the peace treaty.
If Israel agrees to renegotiate the treaty, it will lower the political cost of a subsequent Egyptian abrogation of the agreement. This is the case because Israel itself will be on record acknowledging that the treaty does not meet its current needs.
Beyond that, there is the nature of the Egyptian military itself, which was exposed during and in the aftermath of the August 18 attack. At a minimum, the Egyptian and Palestinian terrorists who attacked Israel that day did so with no interference from Egyptian forces deployed along the border.
The fact that they shot into Israel from Egyptian military positions indicates that the Egyptian forces on the ground did not simply turn a blind eye to what was happening. Rather, it is reasonable to assume that they lent a helping hand to the terror operatives.
Furthermore, the hostile response of the Egyptian military to Israel's defensive operations to end the terror attack indicates that at a minimum, the higher echelons of the military are not sympathetically disposed towards Israel's right to defend its citizens.
Both the behavior of the forces on the ground and of their commanders in Cairo indicates that if the Egyptian military is permitted to deploy its forces to the Sinai, those forces will not serve any helpful purpose for Israel.
THE MILITARY'S demonstrated antagonism toward Israel, the uncertainty of Egypt's political future, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the hatred of Israel shared by all Egyptian political factions all indicate that Israel will live to regret it if it permits the Egyptian military to mobilize in the Sinai. Not only will Egyptian soldiers not prevent terrorist attacks against Israel, their presence along the border will increase the prospect of war with Egypt.
Egypt's current inaction against anti-Israel terror operatives in the Sinai has already caused the IDF to increase its force levels along the border. If Egypt is permitted to mass its forces in the Sinai, then the IDF will be forced to respond by steeply increasing the size of its force mobilized along the border. And the proximity of the two armies could easily be exploited by Egyptian populist forces to foment war.
In his interview with The Economist, Barak claimed bizarrely, "Sometimes you have to subordinate strategic considerations to tactical needs." It is hard to think of any case in human history when a nation's interests were served by winning a battle and losing a war. And the stakes with Egypt are too high for Israel's leaders to be engaging in such confused and imbecilic thinking.
The dangers emanating from post-Mubarak Egypt are enormous and are only likely to grow. Israel cannot allow its desire for things to be different to cloud its judgment. It must accept the situation for what it is and act accordingly.
| Comments (10) | | |
|
In amazement we look to Israel's very slow and retarded leadership who always move after the fact with extreme restraint proscribed by their masters in Washington.
They just can't get a grip on reality because they are always listening to their phony friends on the Beltway before engaging their brains and thinking for Israel's interests first and foremost.
They are in a constant delusional,confused state.
The worst leadership to have at this late hour.
I said it before and It bears repeating;
Ehud Barak is the most dangerous person in Israel to Israel's interests as his primary job is to keep his head in the armpit of Uncle Sam and follow his extremely dangerous agenda to Israel's survival.
And Netanyahu is the second most dangerous man in Israel for having such a scatterbrained man as Defense Minister who answers to his handlers on the Potomac and not Israel's interests.
In my day they would be called traitors and be in prison but this will only happen after the severe damage is done by their Washington assisted incompetence.
Thanks again for pointing out what ought to be obvious to everyone.
Once again Israel is obliged to internalize aggression against it, acting out its enemies mobilization on its own initiative in its own government. More ghetto politics.
"In his interview with The Economist, Barak claimed bizarrely, "Sometimes you have to subordinate strategic considerations to tactical needs." "
His abstruse confusion coupled with his self-assurance remind one of the pronouncements of much-decorated French generals on the eve on Hitler's attack on France.
Thank you Caroline for your insightful analysis of this most difficult situation. Israel is both a burden and a joy - a burden as we share in Her pain and a joy as we see God's hand in preservation. Keep up the great work.
Caroline, the issue seems so clear. Why doesn't anyone, but you see the truth. During the reign of Mubarak Israel and Egypt had a peace treaty albeit at times an uneasy one, but it served both Israel's and Egypt's best interest. The expectation this treaty will be falling by the wayside once Mubarak was deposed is almost a certainty. Obama and his government advisers showed no willingness to support Mubarak which would have been the responsible action hoping to keep the status quo in the region, but it also would have meant support for Israel instead of the Muslim Brotherhood. The resulting escalation of violence toward Israel by Hamas and Egypt clearly indicates that unless Israel takes the upper hand her days are numbered. May HaShem bless us and watch over us.
Barak is still bent on sharing Jerusalem with the arabs...somewhere along the time line Barak suffered brain damage and is still delusional. But the fact that Bibi also would go along with Barak's thinking is disturbing. If the treaty with Egypt is altered then all bets are off, and I suggest interested people study the events of March 7, 1936-the remilitarization of the Rhineland. History just repeats itself and people refuse to learn. Einstein: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Caroline is an voice of intelligence in the wilderness of her country's stupidity.
Tracing the etymology of Hosni Mubarak, Ehud Barak, and now, Barack Obama, it seems, rather than the French word, "baraque," or the English word, "barrack(s)," meaning "a building to house troops," "Barak" might refer to the biblical military commander who, with Deborah, defeated the Canaanite army. Or could "Barack" be an Arabic word, meaning "self-worshipping imbecile," or "would-be tyrant?"
Neither the White House nor State are friends of Israel. Remember Samantha Power is ensconced there and has a great deal of influence on Obama.
Her expressed desire to send a massive army in support of the Gaza Arabs against Israel can be seen in this interview: http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/05/video-former-obama-adviser-on-invading-israel/
Israel's friends in Washington are in the Congress. Beware of 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Israel should respond to the request by Egypt with a resounding NO and request/demand that they be allowed to deploy the IDA in the Sinai until after the elections, at which time they will reassess whether or not they should extend their stay or return to the original agreement. If Israel allows the Egyptian Army to be deployed in the Sinai it will result in both the Egyptian Army and the terrorists in the Sinai and Israel will end up with having to deal with another situation like they have to deal with in Gaza. Israel should never allow the Egyptian Army to deploy in the Sinai.
Just as with Turkey, Egypt is sensing weakness, and is moving in. Seeing as how Israel is thought to have nuclear weapons, what will probably happen will be that the "plausible deniability" or war by proxy will continue -- but with increased attacks -- until both Turkey and Egypt get nuclear weapons (Turkey will probably go nuclear first). At that point, nuclear terrorism will probably start leveling Israeli cities -- if Iranian nukes don't start beforehand.
There is a good chance, however, that a hezballah attack will succeed on Dimona, and then some stupid nearby state, possibly Turkey, will try to invade.
Unfortunately, right now, thanks in part to Israel's treasonously inactive defensive minister, Ehud Barak, Israel has no deterrence. MAD usually contains rational actors. The muslim cultists act like they are irrational, but everyone is somewhat rational. A demonstration of nuclear power is necessary now. The once proud USA, failing under the muslimphilia traitor-president, Barak Obama, is no longer anyone's friend. Israel has no ally in Barack Hussein Obama's America. Israel is on its own. She needs to develop and threaten with nuclear weapons as much as possible. A few test bombs off the coast of Turkey or Iran, might give them pause. If they do not surrender right away, she needs to nuke their capital cities. There won't be another chance to fight back. EVERY enemy of Israel will have nuclear weapons soon, thanks to Pakistan.
Right now, Israel's enemies feel invincible. A series of crushing defeats should be enough to change their minds. Nuking Turkey and Iran to smithereens is justified, given the holocaust, and once other actors in the region see what could happen to them, they might stop attacking Israel.
Of course, another huge blow to Israel's deterence is not just Turkey and Obama -- but the arab squatters stealing Israel from the inside -- the fictionally named "palestinians."I think once Israel nukes a few extrenal threats, retakes the Sinai, and expels all "palestinian" thieves, the world will cease making demands on Israel -- and finally leave her alone. And if not, well... they are welcome to some nuclear death on their capital cities, as well.
(Of course, my bravado probably won't be matched by any public official -- instead, under decades of deadly terrorism, all jews will probably just evacuate Israel, and immigrate to the United Muslim States of America -- where at least they won't be the only non-muslim minority.)