Will Egypt Opt Out from Peace with Israel?

Egyptian prisoners released from Israeli jails hold the Egyptian flag as they flash the victory sign from a bus at Taba crossing between Egypt and Israel on October 27, 2011 (Mohamed Abd El-Ghany/Courtesy Reuters).

King Abdullah of Jordan rang alarm bells when he recently told the Washington Post that the chance of Egypt abrogating its treaty with Israel was “a very strong possibility” and said that “we are the last man standing with our relationship with Israel.”
For over thirty years, the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty has been a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East. With Egyptians going to the polls later this month to elect a parliament that will nominate an assembly to write a new constitution, many in Washington fear that the elections will produce a government hostile to the peace treaty, particularly should Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated parties fare well at the ballot box.
Such fears are not totally unwarranted. For years, Islamists in Egypt have lambasted Cairo’s peace treaty with Israel. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated for signing the treaty. And following Mubarak’s toppling earlier this year, Egypt’s military leaders pledged to take a tougher stance toward Israel. Several violent incidents since have further strained Israeli-Egyptian ties. In August, in an exchange of fire with Palestinian infiltrators from Sinai, Israeli troops killed five Egyptian soldiers. Then, in early September, Egyptian demonstrators infiltrated the Israeli embassy in Cairo and came perilously close to taking it over entirely.
Against these disturbing developments, there is reason to remain hopeful about the durability of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty in the immediate period ahead. The violent incidents between Israel and Egypt seem to have served as a wake-up call for the two countries. The two sides have been working quietly in the last few months to patch things up. Israel formally apologized to Cairo for killing the Egyptian soldiers and the two countries have been quietly exploring ways to return the Israeli diplomats who fled their embassy during the violent demonstrations back to Cairo. Moreover, the two countries cooperated extensively on two prisoner release deals–first the Israel-Hamas exchange and then a subsequent trade of incarcerated Egyptians for an American-Israeli.
While there is little interest among the Egyptian public for a “warm peace” with Israel, a vast majority of Egyptians seem to want to keep the strategic relationship in place. Over 70 percent of Egyptians recently polled by the New York-based International Peace Institute stated their preference for maintaining the peace treaty with Israel. This is a 10 percent increase over a similar poll, released in April, which reported that some 60 percent of Egyptians polled stated their preference for preserving the treaty. Such findings are corroborated by polling conducted by Egypt’s leading Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.
Even Islamist candidates, who dominate two of the four main party lists in the upcoming elections, seem to be going out of their way to affirm their intention to maintain ties with Israel. Aboud al-Zomar, an Islamic Jihad leader involved in Sadat’s assassination, has called for the peace treaty to be upheld should Islamists come to power in Egypt. Another Egyptian cleric and presidential candidate affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hazem Abu Ismail, told CBC TV on September 12 that while he was an opponent of the peace treaty, as a leader he would not abrogate it or wage war against Israel.
Should Egypt’s upcoming elections produce leaders that are truly responsive to the desires of their people, then it seems that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will remain in place, at least for the period ahead. The peace treaty is not necessarily self-sustaining, however. It requires ongoing tending to by both sides as well as active support from Washington, its original broker and sponsor. For now, predictions about the treaty’s imminent collapse, as put forward by King Abdullah, seem premature.

Netanyahu 'interim' deal blasted by Palestinians

(AFP)

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that an "interim agreement" with the Palestinians could be a solution if efforts to clinch a comprehensive peace accord fail.

But his suggestion was swiftly rejected by the Palestinians who insisted on an overall agreement that would take into account the fate of Palestinian refugees and the thorny issue of Jerusalem.

"There could be an situation in which talks with the Palestinians hit a brick wall over the issues of Jerusalem and the right of return (of refugees), and in that case the result would be an interim agreement," Netanyahu said in an interview on Channel 10 private television.

"It certainly is a possibility," the prime minister said.

"But if the Palestinians accept a demilitarised state and renounce de facto to the right of return, I'll go all the way and I think that the majority of the country (Israel) will follow me," Netanyahu added.

A spokesman for Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas shot down the suggestion.

"For the Palestinians, any suggestion of reaching an interim agreement is unacceptable because it omits Jerusalem and the issue of refugees," spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeina said.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat also dismissed Netanyahu's suggestion, saying: "interim solutions are rejected part and parcel."

"It's now time for final solutions that include Jerusalem, refugees, borders, security, settlements, water and the release of all Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails," he said.

Direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the first for nearly two years, began in Washington on September 2. But they stalled when a partial 10-month freeze on Israeli settlement building expired on September 26.

The Palestinians refused to resume negotiations without a new moratorium and Washington admitted on December 7 that it had failed to convince Israel to renew the building curbs.

Palestinian negotiators have emphasised a set of alternatives to new talks, including seeking recognition of a Palestinian state along the borders that existed in 1967, before the Six Day War.

Clinton: U.S. can't force Israel, Palestinians into peace talks



U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday acknowledged frustration in the Middle East over the delay in restarting Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, but said that the Obama administration could not "force" the sides into reaching a solution.

"This is hard work," Clinton said at the beginning of a three-day visit to the region. "I know people are disappointed that we have not yet achieved a breakthrough."

"But we must remember that neither the United States nor any country can force a solution. The parties must resolve their differences through negotiations," she added.

A year of U.S. diplomatic efforts has so far failed to revive talks aimed at ending the six-decade conflict through a peace treaty that would create a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The U.S. recently offered to bring the Palestinians and Israelis into "proximity talks", with a U.S. mediator shuttling between negotiating teams to restart the talks that broke down at the start of a war in Gaza in December 2008.

President Barack Obama's special Mideast envoy George Mitchell, came to the region last month for separate meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in another effort to see the talks re-launched.

Clinton planned during her visit to discuss how Arab states might give
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas political cover to help him resume peace talks despite his insistence that Israel first embark on a full freeze in West Bank settlements