What Entered Israel and the US into Sinai?

The Egyptian Sinai has geographically, historically, and naturally turned into a topic for research and seminars of the Zionist lobby (called the Jewish Lobby) in the United States. It has turned into a subject of immediate talks between the U.S. and Israel, and remains under wraps within the corridors of the State Department in Washington.

These American-Israeli interests spark the political, strategic, and diplomatic issue of the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt: What brought the United States and Israel into Sinai?

Perhaps the quickest answer by these two parties to this question is apparent in two matters: that the United States is in charge of military observation to implement the agreements and peace treaty signed in America between Egypt and Israel that ended the Israeli occupation of the Egyptian peninsula, and that Israel is concerned about turning Sinai into “a new front line”. The latter is an allegation made by the Israeli military on a more serious claim that “Sinai has come out of the Egyptian control since the outbreak of the January 25th revolution.” This issue made “the current situation resemble a security threat to Israel” (Shorouk on 11/11/2011 from Washington on the symposium held by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, “The Near Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the United States”).* The symposium had already been held on Nov. 16 2002, but the aforementioned institute did not publish its proceedings until this article was written, except for two words from the participants. They are Ehud Yaari, a prominent and independent Israeli journalist who worked for a period of time at the international fellow center at the Washington Institute, and former U.S. Colonel Norman St. Pierre, who recently completed his service as a representative of the Director-General of the multinational force led by the United States for surveillance in Sinai.

However, these American and Israeli answers are not suitable justifications for the situation in Sinai since the revolution on Jan. 25. They are discussions between the two allied countries in the absence of the main party: Egypt, the only sovereign of Sinai both politically and militarily.

***

However, the U.S.’s and Israel’s apprehension regarding Sinai remains more than a concern, perhaps to a very high degree of alarm by Egypt. On the other hand, by saying that Sinai left Egyptian control since revolution broke on Jan. 25, Israel accused this revolution and the Egyptian armed forces of abandoning sovereignty. The U.S. and Israel have no right to form these accusations, and they do not represent the existing reality. They only represent Israel’s attack on the Egyptian sovereignty of Sinai, for the events which led to the killing of 6 Egyptian soldiers within the Egyptian Sinai territory two months ago.

The Israeli journalist Yaari began his speech at a symposium at the Institute of Washington, saying: “The Sinai Peninsula is increasingly turning into a state of chaos and poses a threat to the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. It is now turning into a semi-autonomous region inhabited by expanding terrorist networks.”* Israel has no right to make these dangerous allegations, especially after its air and land assaults on the sovereignty of Sinai. It is a situation enabled by the previous Egyptian regime, and an issue which was deemed by the current Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs, Avigdor Lieberman as the “strategic treasure of Israel.”* Perhaps Lieberman concentrated more on the title he bestowed upon Sinai with Mubarak’s regime more than anything else.

As for Norman St. Pierre, he began his speech at the symposium, saying, “The disturbing developments taking place in the region of Sinai dates back to the previous era. Many of the Bedouin felt that they were well treated while Israel was controlling the peninsula, between 1973 and 1982.”* This enormous lie of a statement was formed by the previous American military in light of the national statements launched by the Egyptian Bedouins of Sinai, especially following their meeting with representatives of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Armed Forces shortly after the fall of the Mubarak regime. More importantly, the American St. Pierre’s lie casts a shadow of a doubt upon his role – which he assumed for many long years in Sinai – as a representative of the American Director-General for the international observer force. His fib which was attributed to his words to the Sinai Bedouin reveals that he was representing Israel and its viewpoints regarding Sinai during his tenure (especially as he was a specialist in monitoring the Egyptian side), not only in the moments which he appeared before the Institute of Washington, which constitutes the highest Zionist influence upon American foreign policy in the Middle East.

***

Yet, the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula is still transforming into a topic for research and is subject to specific proposals from the two sides: American and Israeli. But, forming political attacks on Egypt’s sovereignty on this portion of the Egyptian land could threaten military attacks from the Israeli side, perpetuating its illegal justification for a status punctuated by resistance operations, excuses that are Israel’s creations, and by Israeli political and historical design and ambitions in Sinai.

However, Israel is seeking to share a role with Egypt in Sinai and its affairs, by invoking that Egypt gave up “control” of the peninsula after the revolution. It is certain that Israel wants this “shared” sovereignty over Sinai to play a political role in hindering any effort by Egypt to amend the treaty and agreements of Camp David. Israel’s opposing position to such an amendment, which must address the size of the Egyptian forces in Sinai, has appeared in several statements by Israeli officials since after the revolution these amendments were deemed necessary operation to address the complexity of the situation in the divided region between Egypt and Israel.

As is the custom, Israel depends on the U.S.’s welfare – i.e. Israel’s welfare – to try to force Egypt into accepting Israel’s role in Sinai. In the beginning, it was expected of the U.S. in this regard to pretend that the response to what Israel wants only stemmed from the U.S.’s keenness to avoid the outbreak of war in the divided region between Egypt and Israel. This primarily means that showing fear of the U.S. leads to the continuation of the unchanging situation in Sinai to a war between Egypt and Israel.

Given this American-Israeli logic, Egypt must, despite the complexity of the current situation within Egypt itself, be careful of the Sinai issue politically and strategically. And the first warning from Egypt should be to avoid a situation considered to be necessary to avoid the war with Israel at all cost, as well as to avoid clashes with the United States at any cost.

***

Sinai is much more valuable in the present conditions than to become a bargaining chip against Israel and its ally, the United States. We must realize that Israel’s ambitions in Sinai have a strong link with Israel’s wealth from gas and possibly oil.

Israel is preparing for a war on the newly discovered oil wealth which includes the coast of Turkey and Cyprus in the south of Syria and Lebanon, south of Egypt via the future Palestine, especially Gaza.

Israel’s ambitions in Sinai are multiplying in light of the discoveries, and so must Egypt’s interest in defending its sovereignty.

* Editor’s Note: The quotes could not be verified.