Last week, in a New York Times interview, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi said
that if Washington was asking Egypt to honor its treaty with Israel, Washington
should also live up to its own Camp David commitment to Palestinian
Lately, in his speech at the General Assembly of the United
Nations, the Palestinian cause was given priority even over the bleeding
conflict in Syria.
These statements raise concerns for three reasons:
First, they imply that adherence to the treaty with Israel is some kind of
concession toward the US that needs to be matched by US steps in favor of the
Palestinians. I would think that adhering to the treaty is in Egypt’s own
After all, under this treaty Israel withdrew from the Sinai
Peninsula and recognized Egypt’s full sovereignty over it.
law, justice and dignity, principles often mentioned in Mr.
speech, demand that Egypt not hold the territorial gains achieved in the peace
treaty while disavowing its obligations under it. True, the Camp David Accords,
which laid the foundations for the peace treaty, were not limited to achieving
peace between Egypt and Israel but rather drew up a framework for peace in the
Middle East, the West Bank and Gaza included.
However, the treaty
unequivocally states that the parties undertake to fulfill in good faith their
obligations under it, without regard to action or inaction of any other party
and independently of any instrument external to this treaty. Creating a linkage
between obligations under the peace treaty and external obligations towards the
Palestinians is legally flawed.
JPOST VIDEOS THAT MIGHT INTEREST YOU:
Second, looking at the Camp David
principles for a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one
may wonder what Mr. Morsi found missing. The framework envisioned a transitional
period during which the inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip would
elect a self-governing authority and receive autonomy, while Israeli military
forces withdraw and redeploy to specified security locations.
negotiations on the final status of these territories should have been
Indeed, this framework, designed in 1978, was not implemented
for many years. Different opinions may exist as to whom to blame. However,
looking at the Oslo Accords and the Israeli- Palestinian interim agreements,
signed by Israel and the PLO in 1993 to 1995, one finds the same principles as
prescribed in the Camp David Accords. A Palestinian elected authority was
established, received powers and self-governed the Palestinians while the
Israeli forces did withdraw from the Palestinian population centers to specified
As to the final status negotiations, several rounds of talks
were held over the years with little success and much bloodshed in between.
Nowadays, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has reiterated his willingness to
negotiate on the final status with PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, without any
pre-conditions. There is no dispute that Mr. Abbas refuses to negotiate unless
Israel freezes all settlement activity in the West Bank.
Indeed, one may
consider growth in Israeli settlements in the West Bank an impediment to peace,
but the Palestinians have agreed that the issue of Israeli settlements will be
resolved with other major issues in the permanent status
The interim agreement does not stipulate it as a
pre-condition for negotiating, nor do the Camp David
Furthermore, Netanyahu has declared, in a speech at Bar-Ilan
University in 2009, that under certain conditions, Israel will agree to the
establishment of a Palestinian state. This is more than the Israeli government
was willing to pledge to in the Camp David Accords.
Third, and probably
the most worrying facet revealed by the interview, as well as by the speech in
the General Assembly, is that the elected president of Egypt seems consistently
to refuse to address Israel or Israelis directly.
In his victory speech,
he said Egypt would respect all its international agreements, but refrained from
mentioning Israel. Later, there was the strange affair of the exchange of
letters Morsi conducted with President Shimon Peres.
After the elections
in Egypt president Peres sent a letter congratulating Morsi and adding greetings
for the approaching Muslim month of Ramadan. The Israeli press reported that Mr.
Morsi sent a reply letter, wishing stability and security to all the nations in
the region, including Israel – but the Egyptian president’s spokesperson denied
such a letter existed.
Peres’s office then released the cover letter
attached to Mr. Morsi’s letter by the Egyptian embassy in Israel, and the letter
itself. The troubling question is why Mr. Morsi found it necessary to deny even
the exchange of season’s greetings with Israel. With all the “bad blood” between
them, even Abbas had sent such greeting to his Israeli
Moreover, why doesn’t Morsi even say the word “Israel” in
public, even when it is clear he is talking about Israel? One may suspect that
this has something to do with the Muslim Brotherhood’s traditional ideology not
recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state in the predominantly
Muslim region. Avoiding calling Israel by its self-determined and
internationally recognized name is an extreme manifestation of non-recognition.
Iran does it explicitly calling Israel “the Zionist entity” but one did hope
that among moderate Arab countries this practice would be outdated.
has a vast mission addressing Egypt’s internal problems. If he has decided to
postpone any reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so he can focus on
Egypt, that would be understandable. However, if Egypt’s newly elected president
wishes to regain the leading role his country had in the Middle East peace
process, he should speak to Israelis, not about Israel. Morsi should assure the
Israeli public that although he is a devout Muslim, he does not share the
Islamic Republic of Iran’s declared aspiration to wipe Israel off the
Egypt is the biggest Arab state. If Morsi uses his position and the
esteem he has in the eyes of Muslims to bring the Palestinians to the
negotiation table, while gaining the trust of the Israeli public, he may make
his mark in history.
The author is a IDF colonel (res.) and an attorney.
He is the former head of the IDF’s International Law Department.
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>