Palestinians warned Israel at start of Arab Spring: Ties with Egypt will change

[bemildred]

---

The adviser estimated that the nascent Egyptian protest movement would not stop at regime change, and told his counterpart in Jerusalem that if the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories continued, the new Arab world would show the Israelis that solidarity with oppressed brothers is not exclusively a Jewish tradition.

---

Either way, Netanyhau refused Abbas' offer to renew negotiations based on U.S. President Barack Obama's May 19 speech calling for a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders and agreed land swaps. Simultaneously, Netanyahu made great efforts to convince "the world" that the Israeli-Arab conflict and anti-Israel sentiments are not related to the June 1967 borders but to the May 1948 borders – hence the very existence of Israel.

---

A brief look at history underscores a clear link between political progress in the Israeli-Palestinian arena and a souring of relations with the Islamic states closest to Israel: Egypt, Turkey and Jordan.

Budding relations with other countries such as Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia and some of the Gulf states, that started forming after the Oslo Accords, have withered as the settlements bloomed.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/palestinians-warned-israel-at-start-of-arab-spring-ties-with-egypt-will-change-1.383754

[OllieLotte]

1. Maybe Israel should move back into the Sinai?

Seems like Egypt wants to back out of the agreement. Typical for Arabs can't stand peace.

[aranthus]

2. Israel is in a better strategic position with Egypt holding the Sinai.

As long as the bulk of Egyptian Army stays West of the Suez Canal, they can't mount a land attack on Israel. If the Egyptians move major forces into the Sinai, then the Israelis have time to mobilize their army to meet the Egyptians. If Israel held the Sinai, then their would be only the Suez Canal separating the small Israeli regular army from the Egyptians. That did not work to Israel's advantage in 1973, and would not be to their advantage now. Second, I don't think that the Egyptians are trying to abrogate the peace treaty. They haven't said that. They haven't tried to re-militarize the Sinai. They seem to be responding to the attack on the Israeli embassy. The cold peace that Israel has with Egypt is much better than the open war that would ensue if Israel tried to take back Sinai.

[bemildred]

4. Thanks, I was trying to think of a coherent response, and I could not. nt

[RZM]

6. Well put

The Sinai really is quite an effective buffer. I also agree that abrogating the treaty isn't in the cards. I think future bluster from Egypt will be wink and nod type stuff primarily for domestic consumption, especially as the post-Mubarak crew tries to gain legitimacy and support.

[aranthus]

3. The Israelis knew this anyway. n/t

[bemildred]

5. Seems obvious to me too.

But I have often found that things that I think are obvious are violations of the laws of nature to other people. I thought it was nice of them to mention it. There are obvious propaganda elements in the story too. Is propaganda really propaganda if it's correct? I suppose propaganda can sometimes bring its own correctness about, that would seem to be one of the theories behind it anyway. Hmm.

But there were some interesting bits I had not heard before, so ...