The Egyptians who raise the matter of Eilat are skating on thin ice. For the Sinai, which Egypt has convinced the world is historically part of its domain, was always a corpus separatum. It was regarded as such, and was discussed openly as such by travellers and diplomats, right up until World War I. And if many do not realize this, it is only because they have accepted unquestioningly the notion that the Sinai is part of Egypt.
When Francis Frith published his famous photographs, they were of "Egypt, Sinai,and Palestine." When the Anglican divine Arthur Stanley wrote his book of Biblical observations, it was entitled Sinai and Palestine. No one at the Paris Peace Conference thought of the Sinai as belonging to Egypt. It was not until the 1920s that the entire Sinai was handed over to Egypt when, in fact, in large part it was connected to Jewish history (Sinai? Mount Sinai?) and to Christian history (St. Catherine's monastery, with so much of the world's intact Byzantine icons, and so much Christian history), but never to the Muslims. But Jewish history and Christian history did not matter, and Egypt was handed over the Sinai.
How many of you have ever seen the map, reproduced in the Diaries of Colonel Meinertzhagen, that show how much of the Sinai became Egyptian only in the 1920s? Egypt had no historic or legal title to the Sinai except that provided by Great Britain. Britain was perfectly willing to diminish unilaterally the territory intended for the Mandate for Palestine by lopping off all of historic Palestine east of the river Jordan. It was also perfectly willing to curry favor with Egypt, at the very moment when the British who had come under Lord Cromer to improve the civil service were leaving, by handing over the Sinai to an Egypt that had never before been thought entitled to it.
This was not an argument that was made by the Israelis at Camp David. They were beaten about by Jimmy Carter, who was the same Carter then as he his now. At the time, however, all kinds of Jewish leaders were falling all over themselves praising the antisemitic Carter as a veritable prince of peace. This was because they failed to know much about the treaty itself. They also failed to understand what treaties mean to Muslims. They likewise failed to see how poorly the Israelis had fared, especially since the Israelis themselves, with a few intelligent exceptions, did not and still do not understand what is happening, what is the nature of the menace they face They do not seem to know what are their own legitimate rights, and how those rights should be convincingly presented.
By all means, let us reopen the question of the entire Sinai, and to whom it belongs, or should belong. And perhaps those Egyptian members of Parliament will regret their demand for Eilat. However, the fact that this demand has been made against Israel, a country that scrupulously observed every commitment made under the disastrous Camp David Accords while Egypt failed to observe a single one of its solemn commitments to end all hostile propaganda and to encourage instead a new attitude of friendliness, should tell Israelis and supporters of Israel something. It should tell those Israelis who still think that "treaties" with the Arabs mean something, that they do not and cannot, as long as the model of Muhammad’s Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah stands. And it will stand as long as there is Islam, and as long as Muhammad remains the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
No one, not even the Israelis, seems to comprehend that no negotiations leading to treaties mean anything other than a temporary "truce treaty" on the model of that made by Muhammad at Al-Hudaibiyya with the Meccans -- a treaty he broke as soon as his forces became more powerful. If the Islamic tenets that require Muslims to attack and destroy Israel -- by degrees if necessary, where outright assault cannot work -- were known, then a great many people would realize that these treaties -- Oslo, Camp David, and so on -- are simply a snare, a delusion, a waste.
What keeps the peace now between Egypt and Israel is not something called the Camp David Accords, but the military power of Israel. In other words, Egypt does not attack Israel for the same reason that Syria does not attack it.
Amazing how resistant the foolish Israeli leadership is to comprehending this, and to making clear that it now understands what is going on. When Israelis were distracted with nation-building, and were resettling huge numbers of Jewish refugees in the first two decades of the state's existence, such inattention was understandable. But when, after 1967, the Arabs began to methodically dress up their campaign in the camouflage of a "struggle for legitimate rights" and then invented, for the occasion, the "Palestinian people" (who are not mentioned once in the UN records between 1948 and 1967 -- not once, not by any Arab or non-Arab), the Israelis should have been vigilant. They were not. They have damaged themselves, terribly.
And what is more, they have damaged the West, which not understanding the Jihad against Israel, also failed to understand the elements of Jihad that are being used against the entire non-Muslim world, with Western Europe the first to suffer. Yet one sympathizes with Israel, for it simply did not have a policymaking elite that could permit itself the leisure to think and to comprehend; they were so busy countering this or that attack, putting out this diplomatic fire, and so on. And who, after all, wants to allow himself to believe that his country will forever be a target, will forever -- no matter what its size -- be for the Muslim Believer an outrage, a "humiliation" (for Islam "must dominate and not be dominated") that, sooner or later, in a decade or a hundred years, or a thousand years, be undone?
I sincerely hope the Egyptians do something stupid enough to start another war, and lose the entire Sinai again. This time, Israel should annex it, seal off the Gaza strip, expel all Muslims out of the area and re-settle it with Jews, as well as invite in Coptics from Egypt, Assyrians from Iraq and Maronites from Lebanon. Hand over Aqaba to them, and charge their own tariffs for the use of the Suez Canal, of which the entire eastern side would be Israeli territory. In parallel, build another canal across the Suez, and allow free transportation across that, so that Egypt's income from the Suez is eviscerated, and any benefits that accrue as a result of this diverted commerce goes to Israel alone.
Once this happens, the Mubarak regime would collapse, and the Ikhwan would come to power in Cairo. Once that happens, it would be easier to eliminate US aid there, since there would no longer be the illusion of a 'moderate ally' that's worth supporting. Israel should then wipe out Egypt's armed forces, and make it incapable of doing any damage to anybody - be it Israel, or Sudan. That would enable a civil war to take place in Egypt, with no party having military support. If Ikhwan looks like prevailing militarily, they should then be bombed indiscriminately to prevent them from capturing power.
Once this is done, and the largest Arab country is in chaos, it should be much easier to disintegrate all the remaining regimes in the area - Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, et al.
OT but what Chutzpah!
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=90401&d=26&m=12&y=2006
At this critical juncture, Israel needs another stronger leader.My suggestion.... Netanyahu, who understands the nature of the Islamist threat and is not afraid to tell the truth openly.
they (the Israelis) failed to know much about the treaty itself. They also failed to understand what treaties mean to Muslims.
from Hugh's article above
There is such a strange dichotomy about the Jews. On the one hand, they are renowned for their intellectual accomplishments: they have produced great thinkers, writers, scientists, and scholars all out of proportion to their numbers. On the other hand, so many of them are so witless about public affairs. Just think of their similarly disproportionate numbers in left-wing parties and causes. Yet it's the left that has been for some time their main enemy. Why don't they see this?
Hughes,
Nice historical flashback of the now forgotten massive land grab perpetrated by the newly emerging Arab nation states after the demise of the Ottoman Empire with the complicity of the European powers.
The best account that I can suggest for reading of this calamity that befelled not only European powers and the West but also the Egyptian Christian Copts and people of the Jewish faith is the book by Bernard Lewis (1993) entitled "Islam in History".
This book is made up of twenty or so articles that Lewis had written. One of the article deals with the notion of Palestine as a nation and how it was conceived and socially (ideologically) created although no formal nation was there prior to the creation of the modern state of Israel. Within this article the issue of the Sinai peninsula was an integral part of the whole issue of the problem of nation state and how they were whimsically created created out of the rubbles of the Ottoman Empire as well as the European expansionist policies with their conflictual wheeling and dealing in land grabs and nebuleous geographical demarcations.
A real eye opener to the false pretenses and arguments that all the land in the middle east was islamic and more particularly that palestine as a nation ever existed.
who still think that "treaties" with the Arabs mean something, that they do not and cannot, as long as the model of Muhammad’s Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyyah stands. And it will stand as long as there is Islam, and as long as Muhammad remains the Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
No one, not even the Israelis, seems to comprehend that no negotiations leading to treaties mean anything other than a temporary "truce treaty" on the model of that made by Muhammad at Al-Hudaibiyya with the Meccans -- a treaty he broke as soon as his forces became more powerful. If the Islamic tenets that require Muslims to attack and destroy Israel -- by degrees if necessary,
the Israelis really need to read the Koran to see what treaty really mean to Muslims and realize that they are always follow their head pedophile and cult leaders example of treachery and deceit when dealing with outsiders, a.k.a. infidels , and when the world and the Jews will learn this is how they still think it would be a lot better off for all of us. But the problem is in the West. We still take a man or countries word as there bond and in the Arab world. They still consider a treaty something that is temporary. When Iran gets its own bomb or manages from a Russian Mafia or North Korea to buy some warheads for its short range or intermediate range ballistic missiles. We saw just how little treaties matter to Muslims. When Iranian militia invaded our embassy in Iran, and took or 400 people. Hostage in the name of their insane Islamic Revolution, and of course, the treaty protecting embassies, to Muslims since it was made with infidels. When in Muslim eyes. They were weak was only temporary every embassy in a Muslim country is at risk, and the Muslims would screen we are victims in the event. We arrested their diplomats and prosecuted them. Despite the fact that is what basically has happened in Iran egypt if it did not fear the IDF after the last six wars along with the rest of the Arab world. They would attack tomorrow, as it is. There's a war on going Middle East, and Iran and Syria are using their proxies to attack Israel, and they are winning the propaganda war. Even the UN, that is supposed to be impartial as turned in a cheering section for the Arab world and in anti-jew and a world ignores how children throughout the Middle East are taught hate
Hugh,
Great research. As you pointed out before with respect to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and John Quincy Adams, they knew more then than Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. know now about the Koran, Islam and Muslim states.
Leaders are thinking about Nobel Peace Prizes, book deals, speaking fees, being on boards, meeting Miss America, etc. They are not thinking about what is good for their own people.
A large part of the time, leaders are plotting together against the people. Thinking about their future seems never to be on their mind.
As you have pointed out, Bush fights an occupation in Iraq that is of little value to us, while he is apparently content for North Korea and Iran to get nukes, and Pakistan to put its on subs.
Hugh once again hits the nail that as long as there is a Israel there will be war and as long as there are non-muslims on this earth there will be war. So that leaves non-muslims like Israel (and us too) with two options:
(1) Prepare for a constant state of war with Muslim states. Sometimes more intense and other times less so but always on in some fasion or another. We will have to view Islamic warfare as something like a natural disaster. You fight it and prepare for it but expect it will never go away.
OR
(2) Prepare to launch a offensive war of conquest with the ultimate goal of re-wiring Islam to be more peaceful or just out right defeat it and convert muslims to some less dangerous religion or no religion. Hard medicine and hard work but no different then a endless state of war.
Egypt will always be at war (or semi-war) with Israel. Thus the two options for Israel are the above. Prepare to be always on guard and fight each invasion when they come OR invade and destory.
Its going to be a long war no matter what.
Unfortunately, the Sinai WAS part of Egypt. It was part of Ancient Egypt, and let me tell you something, the present day Egyptians consider everything in ancient times, theirs.
ALTHOUGH the modern Egyptinas has NO afiliation WHATSOEVER with the Ancient Peoples- we all know that they are actually transplanted Arabs.
Nor do they have any respect or affinity with the great monuments or archeaological sites, or the art left - they'd just as soon spit on it and desstroy it, if it weren't for the lucre brought in fr tourism- that's the only reason they preserve it. That includes the Head of Antiquities with his cowboy hat and toothy smile.
Have you ever seen such a difference so vast in culture than the ancients and the nightgowns of today?
They are COMPLETELY a different people!
"the ancients and the nightgowns..."
-- from a posting above
I've heard of the Battle of the Ancients and the Moderns. I've heard of the Battle of the Frogs and the Mice. I've heard about the Sheepmen and the Cattlemen. But I've never heard about "the ancients and the nightgowns." Is there something going on about which I have not been informed, because there is a deliberate effort to keep this Victoria's Secret? Why am I being kept in the dark?
I've always respected Mr Spencer's opinions as well as Mr Fitzgerald (especially when it comes to religion) but I have to admit that this post is a little bit crazy !
Why are you making an issue out of nothing ?
Just because a few members of the Egyptian parialiment (probably Muslim Brotherhood)
mentioned Ilat, you're willing to make the argument that Egypt wants to go to war with Israel ??
Why are you always willing to look at the empty half of the glass rather than the full ?
As an Egyptian, I think that our peace treaty with Israel has set an unprecendented example for other Arab nations. Egypt has suffered numerous diplomatic problems because of its peace treaty with Israel. When I travel to Sinai most of the tourists I meet there are Israeli. Until recently, most of the signs in Dahab (popular resort in Sinai) were in Hebrew and Arabic.
Why are you calling this such a bad thing ?
Whoever wants to go to war with Israel (on the Egyptian side) is either retarded or stupid ! Egypt already went to war with Israel about 4 times and it's something we want to repeat !
I honestly hope we could all live peacefully together but it seems a lot of posters on this blog just want to go to war for the sake of it and would like to nuke the whole of the middle east !
Please don't forget we're all humans !
By the way, I am a Copt. Not a muslim !
Personally, I agree with most religious arguments made on this blog when sometimes I feel like the right-wingnuttery is so crazy here.
Palestinians make a lot of mistake with Israelis but you have to admit that both sides should be held accountable. It seems like you are willing to defend Israel no matter what she does.
I agree with you that in 'Palestine' there is an overwhelmingly strong cult of death but you have to fair to both sides.
By the way, there is a strong opposition to the Brotherhood in Egypt nowadays. Liberal Egyptians, copts, nationalists, leftists are coming together against this wave of fundamentalism.
Sincerely,
An Egyptian Copt.
Alright, I mistyped my homepage !
Made a lot a lot of spelling mistakes in my last comment !
Sorry, I've had a few beers tonight ! (yes we have bars in Egypt :)
"When I travel to Sinai most of the tourists I meet there are Israeli. Until recently, most of the signs in Dahab (popular resort in Sinai) were in Hebrew and Arabic.
Why are you calling this such a bad thing?"
-- from a Coptic poster above
The treaty that Israel made with Egypt was honored by one side only. Carter, who bullied Begin and even astonished Sadat with his constantly pushing the Egyptians to make more and more demands, was eager to prevent any statement of Israel's claims, as a successful repeller of attacks, attacks which include the more than 19,000 attacks by fellahin between 1948 and the Sinai campaign alone, and of course Nasser's closing of the Straits of Tiran, and forcing U Thant to remove any U.N. presence from the Sinai, so that -- have you forgotten -- he, Nasser, could promise those hundreds of thousands of hysterical Cairenes, from May 15, 1967 on, that at last Egypt was going in for the kill, and success was assured.
The Israelis had a perfect right to hold onto all of the Sinai, or some of it, or at the very least, to surrender it very s-l--o-w-l-y, over twenty or thirty years, not three (in three tranches), in order to assure themselves that Egypt would indeed stop all hostile propaganda (instead it shows a television series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, discourages any Egyptians from visiting Israel and certainly will not permit them to report anything good, and Mubarak only once visited Israel proper -- just once -- for the funeral of Rabin, and the Israelis have been prevented from attending book and movie festivals -- in short, from enjoying any of those simple exchanges that might, just possibly, lead to some amelioration of attitudes even if not of Islamic doctrine. The notion that this was a "good thing" is ludicrous; it was a "good thing" for Egypt, but a terrible thing for Israel, and the Israelis have never made a treaty, and never will, with an Arab Muslim power that that power does regard it as its right to break, to the extent that it can.
But what about that "peace"? Has Egypt gone to war with Israel? Hasn't Egypt honored its "peace" commitment? Nonsense. Egypt does not go to war with Israel for the same reason Syria does not. Because it would lose. And that is the only reason.
And the best way to make sure that Egypt does not go to war again is to make clear that the next time it does so, and loses the Sinai, it will never get it back. And the best way to make that clear is to point out, again and again, that this whole business of the Sinai being an ancient part of Egypt is nonsense; most of the Sinai "became Egyptian" for the first time in the 1920s.
It is about time that history, and the truth, were brought to bear on this matter -- the Israelis may be too lazy or their leaders too timid or ignorant to do so, but why should the rest of us be limited by what Israel's not very impressive leaders do? The stakes for Israel and for the entire West (which cannot let the area controlled by Israel fall into Muslim hands) are too great to think this is a matter for Israel's leaders to decide.
No it isn't.
"the ancients and the nightgowns"
Your question made me laugh so much - still laughing.
The Ancients are the ancient Egyptianand their mode of dressing
http://www.civilization.ca/civil/egypt/egcl06e.html
and the moderns - I call them nightgowns- yeah, I know the men wear Western clothing, but a great deal still wear the long gowns (Copts?)
http://www.yachtaragorn.com/photos/Gallery/ManOnBackOfDonkey.jpg
Actually the costumes from Panama look like 2-pc men's pj's
http://www.thepostcard.com/walt/foreign/carsam/pm763.gif
(download & enlarge)
"But what about that "peace"? Has Egypt gone to war with Israel? Hasn't Egypt honored its "peace" commitment? Nonsense. Egypt does not go to war with Israel for the same reason Syria does not. Because it would lose. And that is the only reason."
With the U.S. supplying the Egyptians with military hardware like the Abrams tank how many more years would say that.
If Syria, Jordan and Egypt "jumped" Israel next week it would be a close call. My money is on Israel but it would be real close. The U.S. would have to drop some serious aide to keep it fair.
I have had a look at the weapons we have given them including manufacturing equipment. Do you realize they will produce the Abrams without U.S. help soon if not already. That tank can compete with anything Israel makes. Also the Egyptian air force is loaded to the gills with U.S. stuff. Yes Israel has better "packages" but once again it makes it close. The only advantage Israel has is in using the integrated technology and cordination systems. Also their laser guided technology is superior. The gap is to close however. If it were just Egypt vs. Israel I would say Israel wins after a hard fight but we all know it won't just be Israel vs. Egypt. It will be Israel vs. the Arab world and from all sides.
The point is it makes what you have stated already all the more serious. Egypt is a mortal danger and we are to blame. Egypt is buying time.
ebonystone,
unfortunately the talents that go with intellectual and innovative development don't always combine with public affair skills.
Besides, it's much harder to diagnose a situation from within without knowing the signs.
Finally, who wants to face the hatred of those who profess to love humanity?
It is true that the Arab League's 1948 declaration of war to liquidate the state of Israel remains in high gear.
Maintaining Arab control of the Sinai region is a goal of Middle Eastern Arabic states primarily because they seek to quell any Israeli expansionary plans.
But what about that "peace"? Has Egypt gone to war with Israel? Hasn't Egypt honored its "peace" commitment? Nonsense. Egypt does not go to war with Israel for the same reason Syria does not. Because it would lose. And that is the only reason.
Posted by: Hugh
Why would Egypt go to war in the first place ?
Like I said, I think all of your opinions about Jihad doctrines are correct. But I still don't get why you adopt such far-right military doctrines yourself as well !
I can see how you frustrated with liberals in the U.S. turning a blind eye to Juhad ideology but that doesn't really justify the extremist opinions expressed here. Can you be against Jihad but still judge Israel in an objective way ?
You have to remember that Egypt went to war with Israel 4 times and you can't just expect all the anti-semitism here in Egypt to disappear in a fortnight. It's not only due to religion (look at Greece for example). Sure, religion plays an important part in it, but part of it is due to the long history of wars.
You'd be surprised to learn that many Egyptians travel to Tel Aviv for work there. Also, the government (especially the Agricultural sector) cooperates with Israel as well. There are regulatr flights from cairo to Tel Aviv as well as a very famous Israeli cargo shipping line that calls regularly on Egyptian ports.
But, no, according to you, you'd rather Israel goes to war, grabs Sinai then seals off its borders !
Where does it end ?
"you can't just expect all the anti-semitism here in Egypt to disappear in a fortnight."
-- from a posting above
I don't. It hasn't disappeared from Germany or Austria, and has to be endured, fought, contained. But the government of Egypt made specific commitments -- intangible but real -- in exchange for Israel having given up territory, the entire Sinai, which it had captured in the 1967 war and had at least as much right to hold onto as does Italy to the Alto Adige(which, as the Sudtirol, it took from Austria after World War I), or as Poland and other countries (Russia keeping to this day Kaliningrad, nee Kant's Koenigsberg) took from Germany.
Those commitments -- to encourage in every way friendly relations between the governments of Egypt and Israel, and much more importantly, between the peoples of Egypt and Israel, by ceasing hostile propaganda -- have not been honored. Not in the slightest. The hideous anti-Israel and antisemitic propaganda that one can find in the Egyptian press and television -- surely you don't think that this is beyond the control of the Egyptian government, do you? What happens if the slightest attack is made on Mubarak's son and heir-apparent? The Egyptian government can control any damn thing it wants to in Egypt, and for the sake of the corrupt ruling-class it will do so in a minute. But it not only pocked the entire Sinai, to which it had very little title, but also the oilfields and airbases and infrastructure.
That there are some reasonable Egyptains, such as the playwright Ali Salem, who see beyond or through the Lesser Jihad, and that there are some, mostly Copts, who might not bear Israel ill-will -- how many? A thousand? Out of a population of 50 or 60 or 70 million? Egypt made commitments. It broke them. It has received $60 billiion from American taxpayers (unconsulted about this transfer) and remains a center of anti-Americanism.
Egypt has to be made aware that the Sinai, if ever won again by Israel, will never again be part of Egypt. And it can either return to an intelligent and modest nationalism, of Egypt First, and de-emphasize both Islam and "Arabness" (and not force the Copts to pretend that because they speak Arabic they are Arabs, for they are the remaining descendants of those who were in Egypt when the Arabs arrived, bearing their "gift" of Islam -- in other words, they are just like the Maronites in Lebanon) or listen either to the idiotic King-of-the-Arabs Nasserism which is merely, in the end, an Arab subset of pan-Islammic ambitions, which is the other siren-song, and if either of those paths is chosen by Egypt, that way ruin lies.
Hugh,
Nasser aside, the Egyptians don't really consider themselves Arabs. They aren't, anyway. In fact, they really don't identify with Arabians at all - until it's a question of the "spotless history of Islam" (and other stupid stories).
When we talk about Egypt it's important to remember that it was Christian long before it was mostly Muslim and that the country has a long a storied history before Christianity too. Also, the copts don't number a thousand, as you said. They make up 10-15% of the population. That's at least 7 million people. They are already a minority, to lump them in with more rabid Muslims would be marginalizing them even more.
What you say about anti-semitism is true. Mubarak is a dog and the Ikwan is waiting in the wings. However, there is a unique Egyptian identity - and it includes Egyptian Copts. The Egyptians straddle the wider, Arab dominated Middle East and their own unique identity. In fact, even Egyptian Arabic is unique and has many words from Kufic in it - words that are not part of the Arabic language anywhere but in Egypt.
Nasserism is pretty much dead (and thank God for the that!). It led them to worse ruin than communism in Russia. Mubarak tries to resurrect it from time to time as something to rally behind but I've never been in a country where not ONE person has a good word to say about its leader. So, whatever Mubarak tries to do, the Egyptians will do just the opposite, if only to appose Mubarak in any way they can.
I don't think Israel will waste its resources attacking Egypt for the Sinai. Israel has bigger fish to fry. Egypt will only attack Israel if the idiots of the Ikhwan come to power (which is likely). However, the $60 billion in aid the US gives Egypt is mostly military aid and only on the condition that it doesn't fight Israel. I happen to know that the state of the Egyptian army is so pathetic that it makes Saddam's troops look well trained. So, I think the whole Israel/Egypt question is a moot point. I think they will continue their cold peace and Mubarak will continue to blame Jews and Israel for the vast problems in Egypt to deflect the blame from where it belongs - him.
citycat,
Good post. Are you living here (Egypt) ? You knowledge is very accurate.
The Muslim Brotherhood will never cease power here. Lately, they've been under serious fire from almost everybody in most newspapers. They're not as strong as they seem.
Dudeabides,
Your stance on refuting some of basic claims of this post is at best very weak. I can speak of only myself and what I wrote. However, after reading your use of examples in trying to enlighten us about how different is Egypt vis a vis the whole anti-jewish islamic ideology, I can at least attest that they do not enlighten us at all in fact they add nothing to the usual islamic apologist discourse.
Perhaps you are reading the entries as being pro-Israel too much, because they are in a way but the stance is backed up by examples of how serious the problem is with Arabs/Muslism countries. Also maybe the entries should allow you to raise some questions about the situation rather counter the claims by using the examples as an indication of great changes. The entries in this post (in my opinion) raise some fundamental questions that you are not trying to reflect upon.
First, you said that only very few "nutcases" (my emphasis) of Egyptian parlamentarians raised the issue of Eliat and that it is not a big deal. Now the question that you need to ask yourself is what is the percentage of the Egyptian population that would agree with these few nutcases? Can you guess? Shall we guess that it is more than half? or less. You know where I am going with this now right? These nutcases are not the exception my friend, they are the majority. You use these few cases as an indication of an abheration. That's an ecological fallacy.
Second, the claims that you visited the Sinai and met a lots of Israelis has nothing to do with the issue. What is this example has to do with the "Eliat parlamentairan case". The Sinai is the Sinai, and Eliat is Eliat. The issue is Why one make such comment if deep down in their minds they really want to see the whole Negev desert in the Muslim fold. For tourism, Egypt needs hard currency and will accept anyone with the mighty dollars even the infidels, but most Egyptians they really do not want them to be there, we know the reasons. For some Israelis, the Sinai is the next door destination in order to be in the footsteps of their ancient ancestors when they run for their lives away from the mighty Egyptian army.
Third, the idea that they are Egyptians going to Israel to work in agricultural areas is at best very simplistic and naive. Again, what is this has to do with the issue? It is good for the Egyptian bedouins, they can at least feed their families. What else can they do when the jobless rate runs in the 40% of the population.
Again, your examples are very weak to be used to counter the fundamental issue I am trying to reflect upon. The issue is that of anti-Israeli sentiment prevalent in the Egytian society. I really do not care much about what Israel should do or should not do. I leave that to the politicians and the ideologues. All I am interested in is why the deep seated hatred to the Jewish people, even after the peace treaty. When I said deep seated, I mean prevalent. Your use of some 5%? of pro-israeli Egyptians (well let's make 20%) is simply not enough to tilt the balance as you have tried desperately to do and for a good reason.
Unless I am provided with survey data showing how changes in attidutes has occured, you can use as many examples as you wish, they simply are examples that do not answer my fundamental question, that this post I hope is trying to raise. Your examples are not concordant with the issue, they simply fly off the face of the real problem facing Israel in the future.
I did not say, or even hint, that Israel would or shoud attack Egypt in order to wrest the Sinai. I made quite a different main point. That point is this: contrary to what many have allowed themselves to believe, the Sinai was, like most deserts, legally a corpus separatum (treated in fact like the seas). The vast desert of Sinai was never historically part of Egypt, was not regarded as such, and did not become legally part of Egypt until the 1920s. So much for Egypt's claim, that many Egyptians, and I presume from your postings even Copts who, as a matter of survival, have to accept and believe all kinds of things -- that Muslim Egyptians do not consider themselves "Arabs" (really? the high-water mark of that separate Egyptian identity came with Lord Cromer, and then in the aftermath of Cromer, when there were all over Cairo and Alexandria Greeks, Jews, Italians, Armenians, many going back centuries or millennia, as residents of Egypt, the period of the syces running ahead of carriages outside Shepheard's, and the fez-pressing establishments, and the photographer's shops specializing in scenes of pharaonic monuments and couleur locale (the boy whisking his donkey, les noces egyptiennes, the fellahin tilling their soil outside of Aswan, or Assouan in the old French prints, that sort of thing).
No doubt educated, westernized, secularized Copts in particular like to hold onto the notiion of a once-and-future Egypt whbere the intelligent will rule, and the "Uruba" business be replaced by, again, that "Egypt first" and "Egypt for Egyptians" counter-myth that, obviously, would help the Copts a good deal. I hope it does succeed. I hope that not only Mubarak and his Friends-and-Family plan, supported with American foreign aid, comes to a swift end, but that real western secularizers, and not those who are only part-way there (and a good example is Said Eddin Ibrahim, whose conventional and sinister anti-Israel views show him to have internalized, and accepted, the Muslim line on Israel -- which as far as many in the Western world are concerned simply will not do), will take power. And that means, above all, ending that idiotic emphasis on Israel, and beginning to portray Israel with some semblance of fairness, and no longer doing the bidding either of Muslims, or of islamochristians who, either out of that ethnic identification with "Uruba" (Arabness), or because they have been affected, even as some Maronites in Lebanon and clearly many more Copts in Egypt (but not as much when they finally leave Egypt and can breathe freely in the West) have been, by the general Muslim hatred for Israel, a hatred based, as you know perfectly well, on the clearly expressed, unambiguous doctrines of Islam.
My point is this: if Egypt ever again is in a war, it should never again to recover the Sinai. Thanks to American pressure (Dulles and Eisenhower so keen to curry favor with the Islammic countries, and so keen to be seen as anti-imperialist and to distinguish American policy from that of England and France), in 1956, in exchange for worthless promises, Israel handed over the Sinai. We all know what Nasser then did, and what he did in May 1967. Again, under pressure from the hideously anti-Israel Carter and the only-slightly-less-hideously anti-Israel Brzezinski (both too preoccupied to keep their eyes on Khomeini in Neauphle-le-Chateau, and neither having the faintest idea as to how to save the Shah, or why it mattered), Israel under the maladroit and most un-mediagenic (i.e., homely) Begin, gave away all of the Sinai, yet again, in exchange for Egyptian promises that, yet again, have proven worthless.
No third time. Not even the idiotic Israelis can conceivably be that idiotic.
Or can they?
Hugh,
I have to point to some historical errors.
The peninsula of Sinai was originally part of the Nabatean kingdom which was called also Arabia Petrea. After Roman annexation, it became part of the Roman province of Arabia. In later Roman times, it became part of the province of Third Palestine.
After the Muslim conquests, the Sinai peninsula was joined with the province of Egypt (Misr) but the Negev was joined with the province of Palestine (Filastin). Sinai, including the St. Catherine monastery, remained part of Egypt until now. It is interesting to note that Sinai was never considered in Islamic Arabic litterature as part of the lands of the Arabs, i.e. Arabia or Jazirah al-Arab and Bilad al-Arab in Arabic, although in Greco-Roman litterature it is considered part of Arabia.
The Sinai Monastery from the Islamic conquest until now was always administratively attached to Egypt. All Arabic and Turkish decrees in the monastery originate from rulers and governors of Egypt. The monks of the monastery had always to resort to Cairo for administrative and financial purposes.
The Sinai peninsula was, under the Ottoman Empire, not part of Egypt but part of the Ottoman Empire, whatever convenient administrative arrangements were made, at a time of local suzerainties, by the Ottomans. However, during the time of Mehmet Ali, who founded schools and tried to rationalize a cotton industry, and who fended off attempts by the Ottomans to reassert their own control, his troops did conquer, for a time, the vilayets and sanjaks that then made up "Syria" and "Palestine" (or "Filastin"-- which was never, under the Ottomans, a separate political unit), and of course, therefore, the Sinai as well. It was ruled, from 1831 to 1840, by an Egypt that was independent in fact. The Ottomans ceded part of the Sinai to Egypt in 1906, when it was under the effective rule of Lord Cromer (who had arrived to reform the Egyptian civil service, to ensure the proper environment, among other goals, for the operation of the Suez Canal) but it was not until the 1920s that all of the Sinai became a part of Egypt. did not become part of Egypt until the 1920s. This remains unaffected by whatever dispensation was made by the Ottoman Empire for control, by Muslim authorities, over St. Catherine's Monastery. In general, considerable autonomy was enjoyed by various religious groups. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem had a high degree of autonomy, and maintained vast estates in Attica, for example. It would be surprising of St. Catherine's enjoyed the same autonomy.
You write "All Arabic and Turkish decrees in the monastery originate[d] from rulers and governors of Egypt. The monks of the monastery had always to resort to Cairo for administrative and financial purposes." But decrees written either in Arabic or in Turkish (as under the Mamelukes, who ruled from 1250 to 1517, and Turkish-speaking Mamelukes continued to be represented in the ruling class even under Ottoman rule. Whether they used Turkish, or Arabic, does not matter. What matters is that the Ottomans ruled Egypt. The last of the Mamelukes were finally killed in 1811. Mehmet Ali (an Albanian) acted on his own, ignoring the Ottomans, and tried to organize the cotton industry, establish schools, and so on, and even conquered, for a time, what we call "Syria" and "Palestine" and of course Sinai, which was ruled from Egypt from 1831 to 1840. But this did not make Sinai part of Egypt. Indeed, everyone knew this on both sides, and it was not until 1906 that a part of Sinai was given, by the Ottomans, to an Egypt that was now independent of the Ottoman Empire. And the rest of the Sinai was given to Egypt much later, after World War I.
And getting back to St. Catherine's: that monastery may, though largely autonomous, answering to the Orthodox authorities, might in some measure have been handed over for local control, such as it was, by the Ottoman rulers in Constantinople, for they were closer to the problem, and it was they, after all, who answered to the Ottoman rulers. Cars, busses, trains, and planes were not around to make travel faster; faxes and email too left something to be desired. It made sense.
Whatever local control over St. Catherine'sother than that of Orthodox authorities (most likely to be those in Jerusalem) was exercised certainly had no effect on the legal status of the Sinai.
I'm not in Egypt and I'm not Egyptian but, by marriage, I have family members who are and I make it my business to know what's going on in Egypt,TheDudeAbides.
As for the discussion of what percentage of the population in Egypt are complete nutcases, I think that point is largely irrelevant.
Here's a conversation I had in the past few months on a trip to Egypt.
They: "Israel is 90% of our problems."
me: "You're kidding, right?"
They: "No, it's absolutely true. They [the Jews]know that land doesn't belong to them. They know, MORALLY, that it's Arab land and they also know that we'll be fair to them and take of them when we rule it."
me: "Oh yeah? [avoiding the whole 'moral' question] How would Jews know that? By the way that every time an Israeli accidentally ends up in Palestinian territory he's ripped limb from limb by an eager crowd? The suicide bombers? The way that each Arab country dispossessed and kicked out its Jewish population in the 1940's and 1950's? Etc., etc."
They: ***silence***
Me: "it sounds to me like you don't want peace."
They: "NO! Absoulutely untrue. We want peace. But to have peace, Israel must be removed from the map."
I bloody well gave up there. These were very nice people who would never actually go out and hurt anyone. These would not be considered "nutcases" by anyone and they wouldn't actually lift a finger to help scrape anything off any maps. However, when the thinking of the average nice person in the population is so anti-Semetic, so virulent, and so deluded what is the big difference between them and nutcases? Action. That's it. So, I hardly think it matters if we determine exactly how many will actually go and become suicide bombers when the entire population eggs them on. Here's another little point - I wonder if anyone knows how few Egyptians, indeed Arabians, have ever met a Jew? It's much easier to dehumanize people you've never met before. But there it is.
But while we're on the subject of anti-Semitism - let's not forget how on the rise it is among Christians in Europe and how long the Jews were blamed for killing Jesus. Let's not forget the famous holocaust denying by French "intellectuals", the Jewish Lobby broohaha by two Harvard professors in the US. Anti-Semitism is most visible and overt in Islamic countries but it's still a huge problem all over the world and a rising problem in non-Muslim Europe. Unfortunately, Mel Gibson is not the only one.
But while we're on the subject of anti-Semitism - let's not forget how on the rise it is among Christians in Europe and how long the Jews were blamed for killing Jesus. Let's not forget the famous holocaust denying by French "intellectuals", the Jewish Lobby broohaha by two Harvard professors in the US. Anti-Semitism is most visible and overt in Islamic countries but it's still a huge problem all over the world and a rising problem in non-Muslim Europe. Unfortunately, Mel Gibson is not the only one.
Posted by: citycat at December 28, 2006 08:39 AM
CITYCAT,
Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe, but it is hardly fair to say it is "on the rise among Christians", since most of Europe is in what they themselves term the "post-Christian era"...even those nominally claiming to be Christians are about 5% of the population in most Euro countries (and even less are of the conservative, evangelical type, who comprise much of the pro-Israel support you see in the U.S.)...