Israel Asks Egypt to Remove Tanks From Sinai

[King_David]

JERUSALEM — Israel is “troubled” by the entry of Egyptian tanks into the northern Sinai Peninsula without coordination with Israel, a violation of the terms of the 33-year-old peace treaty between the two countries, and has asked Egypt to withdraw them, an Israeli government official said Tuesday.

The Israeli request was conveyed within the last few days, the official said, adding that it was likely that the Obama administration had made a similar approach to Cairo.

The Israeli official was speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the fragility of Israel’s relations with Egypt, already strained by the recent upheavals there. The overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak last year stripped Israel of a trusted regional ally.

The reported request from Israel elicited contradictory reactions from Egypt. A spokesman for the Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi, denied receiving any complaints from Israel. Citing an unidentified military source, Al Ahram, the flagship state-run newspaper, dismissed the matter as a fabrication of the Israeli news media and said that the move had been fully coordinated with the Israeli military.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/world/middleeast/israel-asks-egypt-to-remove-tanks-from-sinai.html

[David__77]

1. I would think Israel would want the Egyptian deployment.

I'm sure they want transparency and so forth. At the same time, were Egypt not to extend greater efforts to securing the Sinai, it could quite easily slip from the state's grasp, presenting a greater challenge to all parties. This is precisely the strategic danger the insurgency is fomenting in Syria.

[Scootaloo]

3. Israel had a similar arrangement with the PA

After Oslo, Israel wanted "more security" from the Palestinian Authority.

They also wanted "fewer police" from the Palestinian Authority.

If the PA didn't hire and equip police, they weren't providing security and this would harm negotiations.
If the PA didn't reduce and disarm its police forces, they were threatening and this would harm negotiations.

Conclusion?

Israel has no actual interest in dealing with Palestinians or its neighbors.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Clearly not true

The issue here is tanks. Not troops. Tanks will not address the insurgent issue and represent a violation of existing treaties. Back out the tanks and stop playing footsie with insurgents and things would be fine.

Its the new government, not Israel that is looking for disagreement here

[azurnoir]

8. No it seems more that Israel is dictating whether or not Egypt can defend its own territory

and by what means it can do that

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. IIRC, the agreement when Israel returned the Sinai specified no military presence

Egypt signed up to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Israel_Peace_Treaty

The real issue appears to be the tanks. Those are heavy armor, not the sort of things needed to secure the borders against insurgents.

[azurnoir]

12. my point stands Egypt needs to beg Israels perrmission to defend itself

at least there is finally some honesty about who is really not allowed self defense

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. Egypt signed up to it voluntarily

And tanks are not needed for insurgents. Who is Egypt prevented from defending itself against, Hamas?

[azurnoir]

16. so what we are seeing is the end product of 33 years of Israel getting to dictate the means by

which Egypt can defend itself thanks, BTW you may note that Morsi wants to change the treaty and IMO it should be changed

[ProgressiveProfessor]

18. What we are seeing is Morsi sundering what has been productive relationship

The end product may be more military build up and conflict in the Middle East.

[Scootaloo]

29. What we're seeing is a DU'er hoping for a fight n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. Snork!

[Violet_Crumble]

33. What does that mean? n/t

[Scootaloo]

56. it's DU's version of this;

[eyl]

36. Hmmm...let me throw a hypothetical

Say there's a peace agreement with the Palestinians, in which a Palestinian state is established in Gaza and the WB. Israel is required by terms of the treaty to provide a corridor between the territories, and any closures must be coordinated with the Palestinian government.

Due to security warnings, Israel unilaterally and frequently shuts down passage.

Would you be OK with that? After all, the Palestinians shouldn't dictate how Israel defends itself...

[azurnoir]

40. However the corridor itself would be Palestinian territory

so Israel shutting it down would be an Israel incursion on to Palestinian territory something different from what is happening here

[eyl]

45. I was deliberate in my phrasing

in my hypothetical the corrdior is not Palestinian territory - Israel is just treaty-bound to allow passage (if you view the WB as the "primary" part of the Palestinian state, imagine Gaza as a Palestinian enclave (or vice versa)

[azurnoir]

47. Then Israel would have the right to block that corridor and use 'security' as an excuse

just as it does in the West Bank and Gaza today, the bquestion then would be would the world accept that excuse, in the US where the media has trained most to equate almost any Arab with terrorism it would be accepted at face value

[shaayecanaan]

41. The Israelis can probably choose to have an Egyptian presence in the Sinai or not...

its probably going a bridge too far for the Israelis to be able to choose exactly what Egypt can do in the Sinai.

Traditionally, Muburak solved the issue by not policing the Sinai, allowing Hamas to happily smuggle weapons into Gaza. The Israelis would complain. Muburak would tell them he was adhering to the terms of the treaty. The Israelis said they wouldnt object to a presence as long as they were allowed to approve it. Muburak told them he wasnt going to have his field officers call Israel every time they wanted to take a shit. And so on. The Sinai stayed unregulated.

This quandary reminds me of American attempts to persuade the Japanese to take an active role in the various Pacific wars (Vietnam, Korea, etc). The Japanese government always happily pointed to their Constitution, considerately written for them by General Douglas MacArthur, in which it was pledged that Japan would never again be permitted to assemble an Army. So sorry. Japan managed the Cold War without being required to contribute so much as a nail.

[Scootaloo]

13. Yeah. Treaties...

"In August 2012, amid a time of uncertainty regarding the future of the peace treaty, the Egyptian Military entered in to the de-militarized zone with Israeli approval." - your wikipedia source.

http://thecamelsnose.blogspot.com/2012/08/israel-approves-of-egyptian-operations.html

Tanks serve an intimidation purpose, and have an advantage in getting around the terrain of the Sinai over trucks.

Maybe Israel could, I dunno, stop assuming that the nation it's had peaceful and productive relations with for over thirty years is nothing but a bunch of backstabbing subhumans? Give Egypt the benefit of the doubt? Stop with the bizarre schizophrenia we see from Israeli policy. If they can trust a few thousand Egyptian troops and helicopter gunships in the Sinai, a few pieces of armor aren't going to hurt anything.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. There are military APC that are superior to both trucks and tanks

so your mobility argument is dead.

Israel, who wants peace with Egypt, asked them to withdraw only the heavy armor. Considering the rhetoric of the recent election, such a sign of good faith seems like a good thing, if Morsi really wants peace.

[Scootaloo]

21. And tanks are quite a bit more intimidating than APC's

Which is the main point. You roll around in tanks, it sends the message of "we mean business."

I'm sure Israel wants peace with Egypt. I'm just not so certain that Israel knows how to ensure this. What we have here is Israel essentially telling Egypt that Egypt cannot be trusted. It carries the assumption that Egypt is going to betray thirty-three years of peace and cooperation by launching an attack on Israel. If Israel can't trust Egypt after all this time, and still behaves as if Egypt is an enemy, then what exactly is Egypt's incentive to trust Israel and treat Israel as a friend?

Now that it's been brought up, Egypt should probably pull back the tanks and if they're needed, work with Israel on getting them back in. Okay, sure. But in all honesty it shouldn't have really been an issue in the first place.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. Its a black letter treaty violation

and given the rhetoric in the Egyptian election, it was going to be an issue. Morsi knew it when he sent the tanks there

[Scootaloo]

27. So is the presence of ANY Egyptian military in the Sinai. Period.

But it seems Israel is cool with that. It was probably assumed that Israel would be okay with other units being brought in as well. After all the treaty makes no distinction on the issue.

As I said, now that it's been brought up, Egypt should pull the tanks back, and talk to Israel about it f it is believed tanks are needed in the Sinai.

it seems to me you're looking for some reason for a fight to break out, PP.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

32. Actually I think Morsi is being deliberately provocative

No rational person wants war or even the resumption of tensions between Egypt and Israel.

[Scootaloo]

57. I agree, no rational person wants war

I just don't believe you to be a rational person.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

66. Snork!

[Scootaloo]

67. If you say so

[ProgressiveProfessor]

68. Just following your lead

[eyl]

37. Given that elements

of the party now in power have suggested scrapping the peace treaty, I'd say Israel has reason to be wary.

And saying Egypt treats Israel as a "friend" is laughable.

[eyl]

35. You're misrepresenting the situation

The issue wasn't that the PA was raising forces - it was that it was raising forces in excess of the numbers and weapon types agreed on in the Oslo Accords.

[Alamuti Lotus]

2. khalifah Morsi just cannot win with these people..

complaints when there is "not enough" done about the Sinai mujihadeen, complaints when there is something serious done. I realize that Israel really misses their fallen pharaoh, but I'm not entirely sure why the troop movements on allegedly sovereign territory ever became subject to foreign permission; that unrepentent nazi Sadat was so terribly unbecoming of a successor to the great Nasser and really a fount of awful ideas, the terms of that treaty being chief among them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. All he has to do is follow the treaties...which he is clearly loath to do

Last edited Wed Aug 22, 2012, 02:23 PM - Edit history (1)

[eyl]

38. You'd have preferred

another war to the peace treaty?

[Alamuti Lotus]

54. in a roundabout way, yes

Last edited Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:21 AM - Edit history (1)

The treaties with the Sadat-Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt and, later, the Hashimite dictator in Jordan allowed Israel a free hand to terrorize Lebanon and the Palestinians for decades with relative impunity, at least until a more active and effective current of resistance had developed following the advent of the Islamic Republic and some other forces set in motion at a similar time. The lack of deterrence on the southern and eastern fronts due to the capitulation was, therefore, a far greater catastrophe for the area than it would have been otherwise. The unrepentant nazi Sadat merely wanted to transfer his vassalage from the fading Soviet camp to the more lucrative US/Saudi payroll--the terms as dictated by US/Israel to were nothing short of a capitulation, and I feel the current government (while still thoroughly collaborationist in nearly every way) is correct in seeking to re-examine the issue. Don't worry, I doubt they'll do anything of substance. Though not at first, the Brotherhood (all international branches, not merely that in Egypt) has been an effective collaborationist entity and is presently being directed in significant part by the Wahhabi dictatorship in Qatar, a staunch ally of US/Israel and a firm force in favor of the counter-revolutionary movement in defense of business-as-usual. In addition, the forces of arrogance still hold enormous sway with the military, which still effectively runs the government and will continue to until a real "October Revolution", so to speak, comes to pass.

[eyl]

63. How much Egyptian blood are you willing to shed? n/t

[Alamuti Lotus]

76. sigh..

this is the mark ------------------------------------------------------------------> this is you, missing the mark entirely.

There were quite a few scattered ideas in that extendo-paragraph; is that really the only thing in response?

[holdencaufield]

4. Laying the groundwork...

... for establishing belligerency.

When two states coexist in peace, they typically co-ordinate or at least communicate their military movements close to the other's border. For example, you rarely if ever see Canadian tanks running up to the American border -- or vice versa.

Israel has communicated that it knows there is ass (armour) near the border and has requested it be removed. By ignoring or refusing the request to move that ass, Egypt has communicated hostile intent. So, if there ever is an incursion, Israeli can make a legitimate case for self-defence.

[azurnoir]

20. well someones attempting to "lay groundwork" for someone possible belligerency

but it doesn't seem like its Egypt at this point

[azurnoir]

7. so the treaty requires Egypt to beg Israel's permission to defend its own territory from terrorism ?

no wonder Egypt says its time to change the treaty

[ProgressiveProfessor]

10. Mubarak did it without heavy armor

Why can't Morsi?

[azurnoir]

11. at least that was announced but I would say the situation right now is a bit different

seems like there has been an uptick in terrorism in Sinai

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Tanks are not useful anti terrorism tools else we would have them all over US cities.

Apparently all Israel is asking be rolled back is the heavy armor. Its a little thing with no impact to suppressing terrorism.

However it will be an indicator of how serious Morsi is about maintaining good relations with Israel.

[azurnoir]

19. aha or it could be Israel creating yet another distraction

as it kind of wound up with a bit of egg on its face over its attempt to use Iran as leverage in the US elections and some rather embarrassing antics of its majority citizens lately

as to tanks not being effective time will tell unless you are really claiming Egypt is about to invade Israel?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Not at all, but I could be persuaded that Morsi sent them there to see how Israel would react

There is no such thing as innocent error at this level

[King_David]

71. 'embarrassing antics of its majority citizens '

Huh ?

[azurnoir]

74. "lynching" in Jerusalem attacks on Africans in Tel Aviv and other places

the fire bombing of Palestinian taxi, little stuff like that but take note I said majority citizens not a majority of Israel's citizens

[King_David]

79. That's what I don't understand ,

What does "majority citizens" mean? It's the 1st time I ever heard that term .
Does it mean citizens above the age of 18 ?

[azurnoir]

81. well yes in the Jerusalem case some of the arrested were under 18 n/t

[Scootaloo]

22. What a weird argument...

"Tanks are not useful anti terrorism tools else we would have them all over US cities."

I was unaware that US cities were such a hotbed of terrorism.

Fact is, militaries are universally awful at fighting terrorism. It's like killing ants with a sledgehammer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. The prior post has inferred the the tanks for there for just that reason

[azurnoir]

26. the difference in case you did not realize there are differences between Sinai and a major US city

in that there are miles long open expanses that must be policed in one of them guess which one

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. Where I live, it is a lot like the Sinai

Beside APCs would be a much better policing choice in either urban or desert terrain

[azurnoir]

34. Then you obviously do not live in a major US city but rather outside of it n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

43. I have lived in many places including Washington DC and Cairo

Heavy armor does nothing to fight terrorism. Its presence is most likely an intentional provocation. If Israel says nothing then a precedent is set. If Israel protests it inflames the Arab street and we get whinning about how Egypt is not being allowed to defend itself and infringement of soveregnt

There is no such thing as innocent error at this level

[Scootaloo]

28. Here, let me show you something.

Sinai:


US City:


Sinai:


US City:


Sinai:


US City:


Sinai:


US City:


Do you see the differences? Take your time, they're very subtle

[eyl]

39. APCs

would still be sufficient*; a more pressing need would be to improve the troop quality and (infantry) equipment in the Sinai (mcuh of it is dregs, it's often considered a punishment post)

*and much cheaper, tank "engine hours" are rather expensive)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. It is not fair to confuse them with facts

[Violet_Crumble]

48. No chance of that happening for anyone when there's such scant offerings available...

Still having difficulty telling the difference between the Sinai and a large US city, I notice...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Having been there, not so much

The reality is that APCs are clearly the right answer against insurgents vice heavy armor. In the desert or built up areas. Morsi deploying heavy tanks is completely uncalled for and is a deliberate provocation.

[shaayecanaan]

50. More bullshit...

Egyptian APCs (Fahds) have non-reactive, plate steel armour (farmer armour, basically), which is vulnerable to RPG-7s, which in turn are readily available to the Sinai bedouin.

If I were there, I'd want at least some tanks.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. So reactive armor is needed to defeat insurgents?

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

What other pearls of military wisdom do you have for us?

Before you answer, consider what the US uses in such situations? You might want to check out what most Bradleys and LAVs have.

[shaayecanaan]

52. Even the Bradleys without reactive armour are much better off than Fahds...

Picture of Bradley:-



Picture of Fahd:-



As I understand it, most of the Bradleys used in active duty in Afghanistan have at least one of the armour upgrades. You would expect a Bradley to be able to protect its crew against a non-tandem RPG strike. The Fahd would not, its armour is only effective against small arms fire.

Notwithstanding all that, the US still uses tanks in its insurgent war against the Taliban:-

In a move signaling a major escalation in the offensive against the Taliban, the U.S. military is deploying heavily armored battle tanks to Afghanistan for the first time in the nine-year war.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/19/report-deploying-battle-tanks-afghanistan

The upshot of all this is that Egypt needs to deploy some of its tanks at some stage. I imagine the Israelis will huff and puff and then they'll get over it. Its not as if a handful of tanks amount to an invasion force.

[Harmony Blue]

70. Tanks are used to hold ground

so I have to agree the use of them in this situation seems off. But if they don't have adequate APC's to satisfy their objectives I can see why they may want to use tanks.

[Scootaloo]

55. Already noted and accepted

I'm having a laugh at PP's fucking ludicrous attempt to draw a parallel between the Sinai desert to US cities.

I mean, as a frequent poster on I/P I have seen some really fucking stupid shit posted. But "tanks are not useful anti terrorism tools else we would have them all over US cities" takes the cake.

[oberliner]

58. Is the profanity really necessary?

As a frequent poster on I/P myself, I've noticed that some of the more recent guests at the party, so to speak, lack some of the tact and collegiality that has existed here for some time.

[Scootaloo]

60. In this case? Yes, it is.

It serves to emphasize just how amazingly wacky I think ProgressiveProfessor's statement is. It underscores my incredulity while at the same time giving extra mockery to what I'm referring to. By busting out the profanity, I make it clear that I do not really believe there is any reasoned, thought-out response available, nor do I think such should be attempted in the face of such bottom-scraping goofiness.

Every word is valid in the proper usage, Oberliner. When someone is trying to equate the Sinai desert with Cincinnati, bewildered profanity is called for.

And don't feed me lines about tact and collegiality, when one of the long-time regulars acts like Glen Beck on coke.

[shaayecanaan]

62. heh...

As a frequent poster on I/P myself, I've noticed that some of the more recent guests at the party, so to speak, lack some of the tact and collegiality that has existed here for some time.

I must admit I got a hearty chuckle out of that one. Surely you must have blushed while you were typing it?

[King_David]

72. Ha Ha

[Violet_Crumble]

78. Maybe you should go start a thread in Meta about the use of certain words at DU?

I'll bring the fucking popcorn!

btw, I've been here since 2002 and people have always dropped the 'f' bomb...

[shaayecanaan]

42. Muburak didnt do it at all (nt)

[eyl]

46. That's an exaggeration

otherwise things wouldn't have gotten so much worse there following his downfall.

[shira]

53. So if Mubarak didn't do it, why does Morsi have to? n/t

[shaayecanaan]

59. Probably because they don't want the Sinai to be ruled by roving banditti...

ask a stupid question...

[eyl]

64. So why wasn't there roving bandits

when Mubarak was in charge?

[shaayecanaan]

65. There were (nt)

[eyl]

69. Not to this extent by far n/t

[shaayecanaan]

82. You guys really miss the old bastard, don't you?

If we knew you loved him this much we would have gotten rid of him years ago.

Not to this extent by far n/t

Then to what extent, exactly?

To this extent?



but presumably not this extent?

[azurnoir]

61. something I've noticed since Mubarak is gone IAF airstrikes on the Rafah tunnels have decreased

perhaps you shed some light on why

[King_David]

73. Where did you get your statistics from? nt

[azurnoir]

75. I read both Israeli and Palestinian papers on a daily basis

and I did note that there have not been near as many reports of IAF bombing the Gaza tunnels unless of course both Israeli and Palestinian news are keeping them secret?

[pelsar]

77. it might just be..

because the Palestinians are shooting less rockets over at israel....i realize the concept that if the gazans stop trying to kill israelis then the IAF wont be shooting at them and blowing up their importing tunnels is a difficult concept for you, but it might be something to consider....

[azurnoir]

80. oh I see none of this has anything to do with increased Egyptian policing? okay n/t

[pelsar]

83. geography...this is not your strong point

the increased tanks/APCs are not near the border and in fact they are not a "whole" lot in numbers. As far as i know there is none in rafah the city where the tunnels are. (and israeli blows up the tunnels on the gaza side, not the egyptian side.

This particular increase hardly threatens israel, but is a violation of the treaty. Given the politics involved, i have no idea who is whispering what to whom......

but as we've learned from you in the past, you dont seem to like for the participants to stick to their agreed upon agreements if you suddenly decided "its not fair" or something like that.

you seem to employ a rather flexible system when it comes to agreements, sometimes yes, sometimes no (you'll note i'm just commenting on your views of agreements, not any govts or other societies)

[azurnoir]

84. well actually apparently somethingelse I did not know

and that is apparently Rafah is an amazing manufacturing town, otherwise all that stuff going through the tunnels that would be everything from Nuke pacifiers to RPG's is coming from somewhere else Rafah the Egyptian side is the collection point, Rafah the Gaza side is the distribution point the tunnels are the highway doesn't matter which side but what does is getting the stuff before it gets to the collection due to possible drop offs on the way, now when I say that I mean weapons I'm thinking Egypt probably isn't too concerned about jars of Nutella or flat screen tv's but weapons are another story they're being used by folks on both sides who are stirring up stuff or blowing up stuff, Egypt is trying top put a stop to that after it became a problem when Hosni was removed