The Cairo Administrative Court on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, calling for the annulment of the 1978 Camp David peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

The petitioners argued that limitations on the amount of Egyptian forces which can be present in the Sinai set by the treaty are a threat to Egyptian national sovereignty because of increasing numbers of terror groups in the area.

The court rejected the case as outside its jurisdiction, leaving issues of national sovereignty to the president and his executive branch.

Since the overthrow of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and the election of Morsi, calls have increased within Egypt to cancel the peace treaty with Israel.  One of the most vocal of these advocates is Morsi’s advisor, political analyst Mohammed Esmet Seif Dawla.

Dawla argued that not only is the threat to Egypt from the terror groups great, but that Israel may one day attempt to retake Sinai itself.

A third of a century ago Israel wanted peace with Egypt and Israel actually believed there could be peace with Egypt. So did Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and perhaps even the Egyptian people.

But what a difference 33 years makes.

We’ve discovered since then that we got a bum deal. We signed with an unreliable and unfaithful partner who did not meet its obligations. And though we got at least got a 33-year cease-fire out of it, we did not get peace.

Instead, the Egyptians spent 33-years ever-escalating their hatred of Israel while missing the opportunity to drag themselves up from being a third world country. And while it’s easy to blame former Egyptian president Mubarak for the hatred, Mubarak’s enemies on both side of the religious spectrum, the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian secular pseudo-intellectuals, such as historical revisionist Abdel Wahab El-Messiri did their part too.

DESPITE EGYPT’S failure to deliver on its own side of the bargain, Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy recently said he wants to reopen up the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty, to renegotiate and link peace to Palestinian statehood, and to remilitarize the Sinai. For Morsy this is a one-way street: Egypt will demand and Israel will give.

If only Morsy had actually read the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty.

There were, in fact, two agreements signed by Israel and Egypt. As international law expert, Professor Avi Bell, has recently explained,

“The 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty and the 1978 “Framework for Peace in the Middle East” are not the same treaty. However Morsy may [choose to] misinterpret the 1978 Framework for Peace in the Middle East agreement, it has nothing to do with Egypt’s obligations to uphold its treaty obligations in the 1979 peace treaty.”

It is the 1979 peace treaty that requires Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, the demilitarization of the Sinai, and of course normalization of relations between the two countries – the last being something the Egyptians never properly implemented. The 1978 treaty deals with “negotiations on the resolution of the Palestinian problem.”

Bell argues that,

“If Morsy believes that the 1978 Agreement is not merely an agreed upon framework for future negotiations, but a binding treaty still in force, Morsy must abandon several anti-Israel positions adopted by Egypt and the United States in recent years”

That’s because, as Bell explains, the 1978 Agreement recognizes U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis for resolution of the conflict. That resolution recognizes Israel’s right to secure boundaries, but fails to mention Palestinian statehood or the Palestinians at all. While it calls for an Israeli withdrawal from terrotories captured in 1967, as part of the establishing a “just and lasting peace” it does not describe the extent of the withdrawal and many of the documents drafters have said that the word “all” was left out so that Israel would not be required to withdraw from all the territory, but only some of it based on negotiations with Jordan, Syria and Egypt.

The Road Map (Bush’s plan for a democratic Palestinian state), U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194 (the partition resolution), the 2002 Arab League decision (Israeli return to the pre-67 borders), the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1397 (envisioning a Palestinian state and recalling 242) as well as recent “U.S. efforts to state that final status negotiations should be on the basis of the “1967 borders” or presumed Palestinian statehood,” all conflict with Resolution 242.

In short, Egypt’s stated positions and actions are in direct contradiction and violation of the signed peace treaty, including the one which Morsi is claiming Israel is not fulfilling.

In addition, the 1978 agreement does not discuss or require an Israel withdrawal from Judea and Samaria or Gaza. Instead it only discusses setting up a “self-governing authority,” “autonomy,” and “self-government” for the Palestinians in those areas – for a five-year period. It does not discuss or require the establishment of a Palestinian state nor does it require that the Palestinians shall continue to have autonomy at the end of the five-year period.

Like the Oslo Accords, it confirms that Israel will retain a military presence in “specified security locations” in the disputed territories, and recognizes that, “All necessary measures will be taken and provisions made to assure the security of Israel.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asked Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi to improve ties with Israel.

Clinton made the request during a meeting Monday with Morsi in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

Morsi reportedly told Clinton that Egypt intends to uphold the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, despite recent calls by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government to renegotiate or completely abrogate the treaty.

Clinton reportedly also reassured Morsi that the United States would continue, and even expand, economic assistance to Egypt.

The leaders reportedly also spoke about improving security in the Sinai Peninsula, which is located on Israel’s southern border. Egypt has moved military troops and military hardware into the Sinai under the guise of combat terrorism, in violation of the peace treaty with Israel.

News item:

The U.S. has recently warned Israel that an Israeli strike on Iran will likely cause Egypt and Jordan to annul their peace agreements with Israel and sever ties, according to a senior Israeli official quoted by the Hebrew daily Yedioth Ahronoth on Thursday.

“These days, Arab leaders don’t rule their people. Rather, the street rules its leaders,” the official was quoted as saying. “An Israeli strike is exactly what the Iranians need: the entire Arab and Muslim street will go out to demonstrate.”

…

“What we’ve been seeing with the anti-Muhammad film is nothing but a preview for what’s going to happen if Israel attacks,” the official was quoted as saying.

Well, sure. If they can use a stupid film made by some neer-do-well in L.A. as a pretext for violent ‘demonstrations’ against Western interests, they should have no problem being provoked by an actual bombing raid.

But by the same token, who cares? Anything can be used to provoke “The Street,” which is a cheap, easily deployed weapon in the hands of both the official leaders of the countries in question and the various radical groups.

Israel, of all nations, can’t let the Arab street set policy for it.

Would it help to point out that a nuclear Iran, which wants to set up a Shiite caliphate in the Mideast, also threatens Sunni Jordan and Egypt? No, because an Israeli attack is a win-win proposition for Arab leaders: they are saved from Iran, but they have another reason to stir up hatred against Israel. Guess they never heard of gratitude.

So what about the peace treaties? Again, who cares. The treaties are not accepted — they are considered treasonous, deals with the devil — by a huge majority of the inhabitants of Egypt and Jordan. The leadership has seen to it that there is the absolute minimum degree of normalization in relations. The Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt has said that they will ‘reconsider’ the treaty, which means that they can decide at any time that they can militarize the Sinai, if they dare.

It’s the IDF that prevents war, not the treaties.

And here is a point that American officials may have missed (h/t: Omri Ceren): the US wants Israel to make irreversible, highly concrete concessions to the Palestinians in return for a treaty. But if these treaties can be torn up by the anger of the street, then maybe they are not such a good idea. After all, Israel might have a need to defend itself again in the future.

Recently I mentioned to a friend that the peace treaty with Egypt turned out to be a bad idea. “Oh no,” he said, “we had 40 years of peace as a result.” But the truth is that Israel paid dearly in the coin of natural resources and long-term security for a temporary cease-fire, something which was guaranteed by the IDF anyway. Yes, Israel got U.S. military aid in return — but so did Egypt, which has nobody to use it against except Israel.

Here is a lesson we can learn from history, both from the treaty with Egypt and the Oslo accords: a treaty is a piece of paper which is only good as long as both sides’ interests are served by it. Therefore we should never make a treaty in which permanent concessions by our side are paired with mere promises from the other, because their interests are always maximized by taking what we offer and giving nothing in return.

And while we’re learning lessons from history, let’s not forget this one: the Jewish people cannot afford to outsource its security, even to ‘friends.’

Visit the Fresno Zionism blog.

Citing high costs and a sharp reduction in reservations, El Al has announced that it is about to stop its regular flights to and from Cairo, Egypt.

Israel and Egypt have kept aviation ties since the signing of the peace treaty more than 30 years ago.

The developments on Israel’s western border might be far more crucial to its strategic situation, even compared to the Iranian nuclear threat. The August 5 terror attack in northern Sinai, killing 16 Egyptian policemen, supplied the perfect excuse for the newly elected Mursi regime in Cairo. Under the pretext of finally dealing with extremist Islamic terrorism in the peninsula, the Egyptian President is aiming for something more: re-defining the terms of The Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement, especially regarding the security situation in Sinai.

Israel had previously ignored, or sometimes secretly approved, Egyptian violations of the treaty. These always concerned deploying more battalions than agreed, but only for a short period of time, in order to fight the terrorist groups. This time, Cairo is aiming for a more serious goal. Not only had it moved to Sinai more battalions and even tanks, with no prior consent from Jerusalem, but the Egyptian media is full of reports of fighter aircraft and heavy artillery batteries about to be deployed. These reports are not all necessarily accurate, but what’s important is that they are part of a bigger plan – undermining the peace agreement, without actually deserting it altogether.

Why is the Islamic Brotherhood government doing this? The most logical explanation would be that it’s done because of internal political reasons. Changing the security part of the treaty had been one of the party’s promises during the election campaign. The Islamists claimed that the current treaty was a humiliation for Egypt’s national honor. I assume they will be going for a de-facto change, believing Israel has no alternative but to agree, since the Mursi regime would find it hard to actually sit down formally and re-negotiate the contract with the Israelis.

For the time being, it’s safe to assume that Mursi is not interested in escalating the military situation with Israel. He still needs the US and because of the economic situation in Egypt would not risk playing too many dangerous games in Sinai. But Israel should follow events very carefully. This is not only a matter of the situation in the peninsula. Perhaps more importantly – if Netanyahu finally decides to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, shouldn’t he consider a possible scenario, in which Mursi (soon to visit Teheran for a conference), orders two army divisions to cross the Suez Canal into Sinai?

Originally published by the Gatestone Institute  http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org

As it turns out, the terrorist gunmen who killed sixteen Egyptian border guards some two weeks ago in northern Sinai presented a gift to the new Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi.

The attack electrified most Egyptians, who assigned blame to the old-line military establishment and gave Mr. Morsi cover to dismantle the powerful council the generals had set up to run the country. Indeed, despite Mr. Morsi’s election several months ago as head of the Muslim Brotherhood Party, the generals have wielded effective control over the country, sharply limiting his day-to-day authority.

So President Morsi moved swiftly after the Ramadan attack, sending his powerful defense minister, Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, who also headed the military council, and the army chief, Gen. Sami Enan, into retirement. He also fired several leading entrenched intelligence and political officials and issued a constitutional decree to restore many of the presidential powers that had been limited by the army, including his authority to declare war.

For Israel, these events present a particular challenge, in terms of both the terrorist threats emanating from the Sinai and the place of the Sinai in the overall Middle East balance of power. Back in June there was a string of deadly infiltrations along Israel’s southern border with the Sinai, resulting in several Israeli deaths. There was also an upsurge in the number of rockets launched from the Sinai into Israel. And following the onset of the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, terrorist elements ratcheted up their presence in the Sinai, taking advantage of the deterioration of the Mubarak regime.

At the time, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, said:

We see here a disturbing deterioration in Egyptian control in the Sinai. We are waiting for the results of the election. Whoever wins, we expect them to take responsibility for all of Egypt’s international commitments, including the peace treaty with Israel and the security arrangements in the Sinai [and] swiftly putting an end to these attacks.

And therein lies the rub.

Key to the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt was the demilitarization of the Sinai Peninsula and the creation of a buffer zone between the two countries. Neither nation has an interest in having substantial foreign military forces on its border.

For Israel, always under a siege, this demilitarization was fundamental to its security planning and the perception of the military balance of power in the region; it was the sine qua non for its decision to sign the treaty in the fist place.

The Egyptians, however, while benefiting from the long period of peace, have always chafed at having to accept restrictions on what they could or could not do in their sovereign territory. Of course, the uncontrolled activities of the terrorists presents an entirely new dilemma for them.

There are reports that Egyptian troops, light tanks, armored vehicles and attack helicopters have been moving into the Sinai in order to take down the growing terrorist infrastructure. Though Israel initially understood the necessity, despite the treaty restrictions, of a certain level of military buildup on the Egyptian side, the Cairo government seem to be going overboard.

There was always the possibility – probability, actually – that Mr. Morsi and his virulently anti-Israel Muslim Brotherhood colleagues would try to figure out a way to assume unfettered rights in the Sinai, and now they may have hit on the terrorist threat as an opportunity to do just that.

Indeed, there were reports earlier this week that the Israeli government was already asking the Egyptians to remove some of their heavy equipment on the grounds that they were not needed to deal with the terrorists in the Sinai.

Though far from a perfect analogy, this calls mind the ancient story of the Trojan Horse. Following an indecisive ten-year Greek siege of the city of Troy, the Greeks built a huge wooden horse and hid a number of soldiers inside. They then drew it up to the city wall and left. The Trojans took the horse inside the city. After nightfall, the soldiers inside the horse came out of the horse and opened the city gates, allowing the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of darkness, to enter and destroy Troy.

Israel can’t afford to let its guard down until the Sinai returns to the demilitarized status of the past three decades.