 |
| The "land for peace" formula was begun by [right to left] Begin, Carter & Sadat at Camp David. It may soon to be declared dead. |
The land-for-peace hoax -Caroline Glick
[I]f the Obama administration, or whatever administration is in power when Egypt abrogates the treaty, does not issue a demand that the new Egyptian government give Sinai back to Israel, and stand behind it, and if the EU does not support the demand, the entire concept of land-for-peace will be exposed as a hoax.
Indeed the land-for-peace formula will be exposed as a twofold fiction. First, it is based on the false proposition that the peace process is a two-way street. Israel gives land, the Arabs give peace. But the inevitable death of the Egyptian-Israeli peace accord under an Egyptian jihadist regime makes clear that the land-for-peace formula is a one-way street. Israeli land giveaways are permanent. Arab commitments to peace can be revoked at any time.
Then there are the supposedly iron-clad US and European security guarantees that accompany signed treaties. All the American and European promises to Israel - that they will stand by the Jewish state when it takes risks for peace - will be exposed as worthless lies. No one will insist that the Egyptians honor their bargain.
As it has become more apparent that the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties will hold an absolute majority in Egypt's democratically elected parliament, Western governments and media outlets have insistently argued that these anti-Western, and anti-Jewish, movements have become moderate and pragmatic. Leading the charge to make the case has been the Obama administration. Its senior officials have eagerly embraced the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Qaradawi is reportedly mediating negotiations between the US and the Taliban.
Both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are happy to cater to the propaganda needs of Western journalists and politicians and pretend that they are willing to continue to uphold the peace treaty with Israel. But even as they make conditional statements to eager Americans and Europeans, they consistently tell their own people that they seek the destruction of Israel and the abrogation of the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.
[In] Cairo this week, the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists secured their absolute control over Egypt's parliament. Specifically, our leaders should note the absence of any voices demanding that Egypt respect the peace treaty with Israel or return Sinai.
The time has come for Israel to admit the truth. Land-for-peace is a confidence game and we are the mark.
[Jerusalem Post]
*
2 comments:
Interesting piece. May well turn out to be true but may not. It is true that pledges of peace get pulled away all the time but land concessions by Israel are permanent. American pledges of security are not lies. We have made it clear we will defend Israel from aggression. We supply anti-missile equipment. We provide technical help. It is also true that day to day, barring invasion, Israel is on its own as clearly the US does not intervene militarily in the rocket barrage Israel faces regularly. What does the future hold---no one knows. The Brotherhood may be moderating, may be claiming to moderate, may not be any different than before. They are the elected government and Obama is right to attempt to engage with them and even work with them. Our isolating rogue governments has not succeeded. It did not keep North Korea from going nuclear. It has not broken the Cuban leadership. Our contentious work with Pakistan however led to our using Pakistan to aid us in Afghanistan, and all the problems with Pakistan including harboring bin Laden just showed that you can get something out of a relationship even when the other side stands behind inflammatory rhetoric and inconsistent actions.
You may be correct that the author may have overstated her case about US security guarantees, but only slightly. The US will not insist that an abrogated treaty lead to Egypt's return of Sinai.
The Moslem Brotherhood will not moderate [mark my words]. Their ideological committment will prevent this. Their verbal statements to the West are just that: verbal statements. To think that their committment to jihad is flexible misunderstands the jihadist's passion.
Post a Comment