Egypt ignores anniversary of 1979 peace deal as Israel celebrates

[ProgressiveMuslim]

Relations between neighbors remain cool after Gaza war
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Thursday, March 26, 2009



OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israel commemorated Wednesday its first peace treaty with an Arab state but its partner Egypt virtually ignored the 30th anniversary amid lingering opposition to the historic deal that dramatically changed the face of the Middle East. Three decades after then-Israeli Premier Menakhem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's historic handshake on the White House lawn, there is little doubt the deal has fallen short of initial expectations.

Relations between the two neighbors have cooled and although Israel followed the Egyptian deal with a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994, a comprehensive peace with all its Arab neighbors remains elusive.

While the Israeli Foreign Ministry is to host a reception with Egyptian Ambassador Yasser Reda, one of the invited guests, Egypt said no special events were planned to mark the anniversary of the 1979 deal.

"In spite of tremendous efforts and good intentions the goal of comprehensive peace remains elusive for 30 years. We believe the Palestinian question still lies at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict," Reda said at a Jerusalem conference to mark the anniversary, a rare public appearance.

Israel's ambassador to Cairo, Shalom Cohen, bemoaned the limited ties between the two neighbors, a situation branded by many as a "cold peace."

"Normalization, as we all know, is still in Egypt one of the most offensive words in the public and political discourse," Cohen said at the conference.

"The Egyptian claim that this situation was created as the result of the conflict with the Palestinians and that it would change once it is solved seems almost irrelevant today ... It is hard to see today how it would be possible to transform the anti-Israeli reality in the Egyptian street in the future." The watershed deal Begin and Sadat signed in the presence of then-US President Jimmy Carter put an end to 30 years of Israeli isolation in the region after four wars with its Arab neighbors.

It also opened the door to massive military and civilian aid to Egypt from the United States, which has sent about $2 billion a year to the Arab world's most populous nation since 1979.

Despite initial euphoria in Egypt, the treaty drew condemnation from much of the Arab world and Sadat paid the price for peace with his life, assassinated at a military parade in 1981 by an Islamist militant.


And in nearly three decades in power - aside from attending the funeral of slain Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has never once followed in the footsteps of Sadat, whose landmark visit to Occupied Jerusalem in 1977 marked a turning point in relations.

Israel's deadly three-week onslaught on the Gaza Strip at the turn of the year triggered renewed hostility in Egypt, which has long played a role of mediator in peacemaking.

Since the end of Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip, Cairo has acted as a go-between to try to hammer out a sustainable truce between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist rulers of the tiny Palestinian enclave.

But domestic pressure prompted the Egyptian government to publicly criticize Israel's conduct of the talks.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=100366

[Kurska]

1. Theres never been a good war or a bad peace.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Go tell that to Neville Chamberlain.

Most wars are bad, and most peaces are good, but there are exceptions.

[Kurska]

6. Only really works when both sides agree with the philosophy

And right now Neither Israel nor Egypt is exactly chomping at the bits to go at it in a steel cage.

[henank]

2. What's with the dateline

"Occupied Jerusalem"? Jerusalem is occupied? I'm sure the Israelis didn't know this. Certainly West Jerusalem is Israeli territory plain and simple. Can these writers not accept even this basic fact? It does not bode well for any prospective peace if they can't.

[Idealism]

3. West may not be occupied, but East increasingly is according to some people.

Like, these authors, for instance it seems.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. Look at this link, which illustrates exactly how Jerusalem is occupied.

http://www.philipweiss.org/.a/6a00d8341cc8ad53ef01156f5833be970b-pi

[Kurska]

7. Given that most of the recent major teror attacks in israel have been by people from East Jerusalem

Would you atleast concede that more stringent travel restrictions and more careful watch of East Jerusalem are atleast within the realm of sanity, if not exactly morality?

[Ken Burch]

10. The way to deal with the "terror attacks" is to deal with what causes them

If Palestinians were not living in a subordinate, oppressed status in this situation, they likely wouldn't be harming anyone. They haven't done what they've done for the cheap thrills.

[Shaktimaan]

18. What causes them?

Israel's existence?

You seem to be assuming that the occupation is what inspires terrorism, but I'm not sure why. The organizations who are actually executing the terrorist attacks in question have always been quite clear as to their motivation. Why would you assume that terrorism is due to anything other than the reasons consistently given by the terrorists themselves?

If Palestinians were not living in a subordinate, oppressed status in this situation, they likely wouldn't be harming anyone.

Well, this statement begs obvious question, "If this is true, then why did the Palestinians begin harming people in the first place?" Terrorism preceded any sort of oppressive actions imposed upon the Palestinians by Israel.

Or for that matter, wouldn't your theory imply that any substantial decrease in the Palestinians' oppression (or increase in their freedoms, recognition of their right to self-govern, etc.), would result in a subsequent decrease in terrorism? (So, if more oppression means more terrorism then less should mean less, right?) But the opposite has (so far) been the reaction. More freedoms have always resulted in more terrorism, not less... even when Israel's concessions have been complete, (as in the withdrawal from Lebanon.)

Won't you at least concede that the situation is far more complex than the simple cause and effect thread that you've described here?

[Vegasaurus]

19. Shakti, you have to stop posting all these truths

people like to think that Arab violence towards Jews, their "resistance" has something to do with the "occupation".

They like to conveniently forget all the truth and history of the past 100 years, long before occupations (or during the Jordanian and Egyptian occupations), long before there even was an Israel.

This is why these idiotic calls for a "single state" will never come to pass.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Yeah, Shakti! Like you and Veggie are the forum's greatest I/P experts!!!

Both you and Shakti like to conveniently forget all about the truth and history of the past 100 years when there was Jewish violence towards Arabs as well as Arab violence towards Jews...

[Shaktimaan]

23. Why thank you violet.

I wouldn't call us the "greatest" experts, myself... but I always appreciate a compliment. But don't sell yourself short. I'm sure if you study hard and learn how to focus a little better you could be considered somewhat knowledgeable yourself eventually.

Both you and Shakti like to conveniently forget all about the truth and history of the past 100 years when there was Jewish violence towards Arabs as well as Arab violence towards Jews...

Huh, you think? OK, like when?

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Damn. I should remember that some folk are sarcasm-impaired...

And yr clearly being sarcastic needing to ask when there was any Jewish violence towards Arabs over the past 100 years. Anyone with the slightest shred of knowledge of the conflict knows there was. You should read 'Righteous Victims' by Benny Morris, though I suspect you'll skim over the parts describing Jewish violence towards Arabs...

[Shaktimaan]

26. I thought you just said that I was "sarcasm impaired."

And yr clearly being sarcastic needing to ask when there was any Jewish violence towards Arabs over the past 100 years.

No, I asked no such thing. You said that I conveniently forget such instance of Jewish violence towards Arabs. So I'm asking you when... as in when did I ever forget? Give me an example or two. I'll bet you can't even come up with one.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I sure did. It's very clear that neither you nor Veggie are the experts you think you are...

You said that I conveniently forget such instance of Jewish violence towards Arabs. So I'm asking you when... as in when did I ever forget? Give me an example or two. I'll bet you can't even come up with one.

Try every post in this forum you've ever done. All you ever talk about is Arab violence towards Jews and you never ever mention that the violence wasn't the one-sided thing you portray it to be.

[Shaktimaan]

35. Actually V, it was you that said we were the greatest experts on the entire forum...

And I didn't even necessarily agree with you. Actually I find it a little weird that you're spending so much time obsessing over how Veggie and I view ourselves, what we might be thinking, whether or not our self-evaluations are accurate, and so on, especially since neither of us brought the subject up. I mean look at the above post for example... why would you bother spending your time insulting our intelligence and speculating on my objectivity. You aren't even correct either, it's so weird of you to do this.

All you ever talk about is Arab violence towards Jews

Naw. I also talk about cats. Ha! Shows what you know!

you never ever mention that the violence wasn't the one-sided thing you portray it to be.

Why don't we actually look at what I WROTE instead of you trying (and failing) to deduce what I was thinking, what I forgot, my ability to detect sarcasm, what I meant to say that one time, and whether or not I'm an expert in any given area of study.

Won't you at least concede that the situation is far more complex than the simple cause and effect thread that you've described here?

Now what exactly is your problem with this? You feel that it demonstrates an unwillingness to look at this conflict from anything but one sided violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews... correct? Well, as a bona fide expert on what I was thinking about when I wrote this statement down, I can unequivocally state, without any possibility of error, that your concern is entirely unfounded.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. I also pointed out it was sarcasm...

Actually I find it a little weird that you're spending so much time obsessing over how Veggie and I view ourselves, what we might be thinking, whether or not our self-evaluations are accurate, and so on, especially since neither of us brought the subject up.

Yeah, coz clearly responding to a blatantly stupid 'Shakt you have to stop posting all these truths!' posts from Veggie with a smartarse comment makes me obsessive blah blah blah. That was sarcasm, btw. :)

When I pointed out that all you ever talk about is Arab violence towards Jews and that you never mention the violence of Jews towards Arabs over the years, you deny it, but I'm not finding any posts in the archives that support that you also mention Jewish violence towards Arabs. Maybe you could help out by linking to a few posts of yrs where you have?

Won't you at least concede that the situation is far more complex than the simple cause and effect thread that you've described here?

Now what exactly is your problem with this? You feel that it demonstrates an unwillingness to look at this conflict from anything but one sided violence perpetrated by Arabs against Jews... correct? Well, as a bona fide expert on what I was thinking about when I wrote this statement down, I can unequivocally state, without any possibility of error, that your concern is entirely unfounded.


Uh, apart from the fact you wrote that in a post I wasn't responding to, I'd need you to explain why you think the situation is far more complex than the simple cause and effect that someone else described. Not because I don't think the situation is far more complex than any simple cause and effect scenario, but does that mean you think other simple cause and effect scenarios that absolve responsibility from the Zionists and later Israel are okay, or do you mean that all simple cause and effect scenarios are rather silly?

btw, I leave the mind-reading to others. In yr case, everything I said is based on what I've read of yr posts since you've been here....

[Ken Burch]

8. Great. The Israeli government is celebrating thirty years of successfully denying

Justice and self-determination to the Palestinian people.

Come back, Menachem Begin, all is forgiven.

:eyes:

[Kurska]

9. What are you trying to say here? The peace pact between israel and egypt was a bad thing?

Without it the two nations probably would have fought a series of bloody wars.

[Ken Burch]

11. No. That it was wrong for Begin to insist that the Palestinians get nothing in Camp David

If the Israelis had done what everyone in the world knew they had to do and accepted a Palestinian state made up of all the West Bank and Gaza at the time, the war would have ended and Jews and Arabs would live together in peace.

The problems all derive from the obsession of the Israeli government and the IDF with PREVENTING a real Palestinian state from being created.

Begin knew what had to be done in '79. He refused to do it and had his apologists in the states call everyone who supported it "anti-Israel".

That's why things are the way they are now.

You can't hold a people down and expect them to simply accept it. Nobody does. Anywhere. Ever.

[Kurska]

12. Israeli Concessions don't bring peace, I'm sorry, the Gaza withdraw shows that in a clear way.

If Israel withdrew from the west bank in the same way they did in the gaza strip it would just be part 2 of take over and reinvade. Any peace settlement is going to require hard sacrifices for both sides and claiming the conflict would end if Israel just gave more is so one sided and non-logical I have a hard time comprehending it.

[bemildred]

13. Gaza withdrawal shows that if you make a unilateral withdrawal

you get nothing in particular in return. You want an agreement, you have to negotiate.

[Ken Burch]

14. How the hell do you get peace WITHOUT concessions?

You can't honestly think that holding on to the West Bank and building more settlements there was of benefit to Israeli security.

It's enough for the Palestinians to concede that Israel, in some form, has a right to continue to existing. They should not have to accept large settlements of hostile Arab-hating extremists in the West Bank to prove their good intentions, especially since we can assume that every settlement that remains will be a base camp for the "Eretz Yisroel" crowd. The PA made that concession years ago and that is all that can be reasonably asked of them, other than perhaps accepting compensation instead of RofR for people kicked out of Israel proper in '48. That would need to be a LOT of compensation and with really sincere apologies.

Gaza was not a meaningful concession, in that a)it was done unilaterally, thus disrespecting the PA when the PA automatically had the right to expect to be treated as an equal in the negotiating process on everything and b) wasn't an area of any real historical significance to the world's Jewish communities.

Sharon had to bribe people to settle there, if you recall.

And the "withdrawal" was followed by the siege and the closing of the borders. So Israel has no right to feel any anger about how the Gazan population responded to the situation. The Israelis would have done the same if the situation was reversed.

[Shaktimaan]

15. where did you hear these things?

The Gaza pullout WAS negotiated with the PA.

But the criticism you're leveling against Israel now is a great example of how that state is damned no matter what it does. When they engage in the long, frustrating peace process with the Palestinians and it then moves at a glacial pace, Israel is constantly told that "they should just leave the OPT already! That the negotiations are merely an excuse to waste time while they stall the process and steal more Palestinian land." But then when Israel actually does forgo the red tape, (achieved primarily by leaving Gaza without asking for any Palestinian concessions in return, which is something I would have thought to be a very GOOD thing), they are accused of withdrawing without negotiating the specifics beforehand with the PA. Which is especially unfair considering that it isn't even true!

It just blows my mind that Israel will even be critiqued for quickly and completely withdrawing all of its settlements from Gaza, because people don't think that it was done the "right way." Even when Israel does EXACTLY what was asked of it, people will find a reason to insist that it was a malicious act which proves Israel's ill intent.

And the withdrawal wasn't immediately followed by the siege or closing of the borders at all. The withdrawal was FIRST immediately followed by a VAST increase in the amount of rockets and mortars being launched at Israel, which Israel did NOT respond militarily to for many months. The siege was not even initiated immediately following Hamas' electoral win but only after their decision to disregard the agreements previously reached between the PA and Israel, (while also continuing to increase cross border attacks against Israel.)

especially since we can assume that every settlement that remains will be a base camp for the "Eretz Yisroel" crowd.

Why would you assume such a thing? Most settlers are actually not rabid kipot srugot nut-jobs at all.

Gaza was not a meaningful concession...

Hahahaha! LOL! That is only being said because Israel actually did it! NO ONE was saying such thing BEFORE Israel withdrew. And they certainly weren't saying that the settlements were not such a big deal when Israel was in the process of building them, were they? No, they ONLY became relatively insignificant AFTER Israel withdrew from Gaza.

It seems that there's always a reason to minimize any Israeli contributions to the peace process. Issues that loom monumental are suddenly described as insignificant gestures once they are addressed by Israel. Like Shrinky Dinks, sorta.

[Vegasaurus]

17. The historical revisionists really are shocking in their well meaning naivity

but being divorced from reality will not help their cause.

[azurnoir]

29. No it was not

the closures of the crossings began within weeks, the air blockade was going on all along

BTW it must be spring break huh?

[Shaktimaan]

34. what was not?

and what exactly "was it not" to begin with?

The crossings were closed individually sometimes following rocket attacks or (especially) mortar attacks on the crossing itself. That's a very different thing from the blockade that came later on, which was supported by the Europeans, Americans and even the Egyptians, in addition to Israel. Those crossing closures were pretty standard, low level reactions to an attack. I mean, what do you expect? Israel to keep a crossing that's just been hit by a mortar open and functional? That sounds dangerous, doesn't it?

BTW it must be spring break huh?

I guess so, depending on where one goes to school. Isn't it usually always around Easter?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. Small Israeli concessions don't bring peace.

If I'm standing on both your feet in stilleto heels, taking my weight off one of them isn't going to stop you trying to push me over.

To bring peace, Israel will have to make a complete or near-complete withdrawal to the Green line, dismantle the settlements, give up part of Jerusalem, make some concessions on the refugees (probably a partial right of return, plus compensation), and stop blockading and impoverishing the Palestinians.

Addressing a few of the Palestinians grievances and then acting innocent and surprised when they don't give up on the remainder doesn't bring peace, I quite agree.

[Shaktimaan]

33. you see the flaw in that don't you?

what you're saying is that until Israel meets a certain, very high level of expectation, they should expect a constant increase in violence and terrorism. No one is acting surprised that peace did not blossom overnight. But every concession that you are asking of Israel brings a cost in terms of security for them. You are actually expecting that Israel would allow a right of return to people who are engaged in an active war with them?

You're aware of the concept of carrots and sticks, right? Apply it to this situation. If every Israeli concession short of this "magic amount" brings increased terrorism then their motivation to do anything that even resembles a concession is severely curtailed. Israeli concessions should not be "rewarded" with sticks. On the other hand, if Palestinians continue to increase terrorism in response to Israel making certain concessions then their metaphor is also reversed... they are receiving carrots for increasing terrorism.

Addressing a few of the Palestinians grievances and then acting innocent and surprised when they don't give up on the remainder doesn't bring peace, I quite agree.

But you seem to think something quite similar... that refusing to address Israel's grievances even when Israel takes positive actions won't affect the peace process. If any peace process is to work at all then it must benefit both parties to participate. The fact is that continuing to fight hurts the Palestinians far more than the Israelis. Their actions don't bring them much leverage however the consequences are severe. I would think that the Palestinians should be looking for a way to curtail the fighting rather than encourage it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Oh, I don't think it will *happen*.

I don't see any possibility whatsoever of Israel *making* those concessions.

All I am saying is that
1) If Israel did make those concessions it would probably end the violence.
2) Unless Israel makes those concessions, the violence will continue.

I wasn't making any comment on the relative likelihood of those two scenarios.

I don't see any end to the violence in sight.


Incidentally, the reason why it would (I won't, sadly, say "will") have to be Israel who broke the cycle is that Israel has a single government, whereas the Palestinians are a variety of factions with no unified leadership, so even if one Palestinian faction makes concessions the others won't do so simultaneously, Israel will have an excuse not to reciprocate, and the cycle will continue. Chance for peace in the Middle East in the forseeable future largely died with Arafat, I think.

[Shaktimaan]

16. Are you serious?

If the Israelis had done what everyone in the world knew they had to do and accepted a Palestinian state made up of all the West Bank and Gaza at the time

In 1979?

In 1979 the West Bank was still being claimed by Jordan as their territory, all West Bank Palestinians were Jordanian citizens and the Palestinians' official stance was that Israel was really Palestine... not the WB and Gaza.

What "whole world" do you think was advocating a two state solution way back then? (Not this world?)

That's why things are the way they are now.

So... things are the way they are now because of Israel's landmark peace treaty with Egypt? Interesting theory. You know, that same treaty also failed to address global warming... damn Begin! (I knew the hole in the ozone was his fault.)

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I'm going to ask the same thing of you...

In 1979 the West Bank was still being claimed by Jordan as their territory, all West Bank Palestinians were Jordanian citizens and the Palestinians' official stance was that Israel was really Palestine... not the WB and Gaza.

Knowing how keen you are on factuality, there's that little annoying fact that even if a two-state solution had been on the cards back then, Israel refused to acknowledge the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank, and hence wouldn't have given a crap about other claims of sovereignty on territory Israel was occupying...

[Shaktimaan]

22. So, what's your point?

Are you saying that you believe in 1979 the entire world was backing a two state solution based on a Palestinian state in Gaza and the WB; a deal which Begin personally worked to derail by ensuring that everyone who publicly supported it stateside was labeled "anti-Israel", despite the plan's great global popularity at the time?

[Violet_Crumble]

25. It's not what yr making out it is...

Try actually reading what I say and responding to that instead of making up crap that's got nothing to do with what I said...

[Shaktimaan]

28. So that's a "no" then I take it?

V, I realize you weren't saying that insane blather. But Ken actually was. That insanity was actually a statement made by Ken describing his understanding of the historical record of facts and actions surrounding the '79 Peace Treaty. So your post was kind of changing the subject and I didn't want to lose the thread.

It seemed like you were defending his post for some reason and I wanted to make absolutely sure that you understood what Ken was trying to pass off as real, historical facts before continuing. Because he was literally just making up stuff that sounded legit to himself, even though it was totally absurd.

So, you and I can discuss your post if you like, but I don't understand why you would take issue at all with me calling out anyone that's just blatantly making up crap out of the blue and posting it as real-life history. Opinions are one thing but this kind of stuff is just embarrassing... or it would be except then some people read it, believe it themselves, and then all of society gets a little bit dumber as a result.

So, what... do you really want my comment on your previous post? Like, for reals? Cuz I'll gives it to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

31. No, that was a 'stop attributing crap to me that I didn't say'...

It's not that difficult to follow what I said. I added some relevant information that you'd left out about how Israel never recognised any claim of Jordan on the West Bank. Don't like it? Argue why, but don't make up crap that I didn't say...

[IndianaGreen]

30. Meanwhile the Israel Lobby in America keeps sliming Jimmy Carter

without whom there wouldn't have been a Camp David Accord.