Abdul Monheim Aboul Fotouh, left, and Amr Moussa during
the televised debate in Cairo Photo: EPA
Well, as predicted, it looks like the Egyptians will end up mucking up the peace treaty that has been in place with Israel now for over 30 years - I guess some of these clowns need to be reminded of how much Egyptian blood can spill onto the sands of the desert.
But the fact of the matter is this is the outcome of a so-called "revolution" in Egypt - a revolution that was always focused on turning Egypt into a terrorist state - let me ask you this...how much have you heard in the past six months about reforms in the democracy of Egypt? How many interviews have you seen of Egyptians living the good life now? Where is the indepth analysis on the historic transformation of Egypt now that the evil dictator Mubarek was silenced?
You won't see it, you won't hear any of it. This was all about putting radical Islamists in power and making the Middle East even more unstable than it was. Touche' Barry. Touche'.
The article comes to us from The Telegraph.
Israel is an 'aggressor' and 'enemy', say Egypt presidential candidates
Amr Moussa, a liberal nationalist, and Abdul Monheim Aboul Fotouh, a moderate Islamist, both sought to burnish their credentials as critics of Israel during the American-style debate, a historically unparalleled event that riveted Egyptians.
Both men attempted to present the other as weak on Israel, with Mr Aboul Fotouh openly challenging his rival to declare whether or not he regarded the Jewish state as an "enemy" – a demand that elicited a cautious response.
"It is a country that advocates an aggressive stance but I do not want to choose these emotive expressions," Mr Moussa replied. "The responsibility of the president is to be removed from this and make the right decision for the country."
Mr Aboul Fotouh was more forthright, baldly declaring: "Israel is an enemy."
But both men found that they actually shared more common ground than on many other issues that divide them, pledging with equal vehemence that they would seek to renegotiate aspects of the peace treaty, which is seen as vital to stability in the Middle East, seen as unfair.
Such rhetoric, which has been a regular feature on the Egyptian political scene since last year's overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, has inevitably caused alarm in Israel. But on Friday government officials in Jerusalem were phlegmatic about the debate, saying they saw it in the context of electoral populism.
"In Egypt, you are seeing more pluralism and democracy that at any time in its recent history but when it comes to Israel there is only one discourse," said Yigal Palmor, a spokesman for the Israeli foreign ministry.
"I think it is quite obvious that the populist thing to do is to bash Israel as strongly as you can. The more you bash Israel, the more points you gain, regardless of whether you are Islamist or secular."
Perhaps significantly, arguments over Israel were only briefly addressed during a debate that lasted four hours.
While many Egyptians are hostile towards Israel, the subject does not dominate the agenda of a country still trying to shape its identity in the post-Mubarak era. Moreover, opinion polls indicate that a narrow majority of Egyptians regard the peace treaty positively and wish to keep it.
Both candidates have also declared that they support the pact. Mr Moussa has pledged to honour the agreement, saying that he could not envisage its cancellation "under any circumstances" while Mr Aboul Fotouh, though more guarded, has also expressed his support for the deal.
But there have undoubtedly been mixed messages, and Israel says it will reserve judgment until a new president has assumed office in Egypt.
"We are taking notes of all the statements guaranteeing full respect of the treaty and we are also taking note of other sounds in other debates," said Mr Palmor. "We will only know when the political situation stabilises what their intentions really are."
Among the statements that has caused concern in Israel is a declaration last month by Mr Moussa that the Camp David accords of 1978, which underpinned the peace treaty signed the following year, were "dead and buried".
But Mr Moussa has been careful to differentiate between the accords and the peace treaty itself. He says his declaration was based on the fact that the Camp David agreements called for the Palestinian people to achieve full autonomy within five years, leading to a full Israeli military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Neither ever happened.
But such pronouncements are largely rhetorical. More worryingly for Israel, both candidates say they seek something more tangible by revising a clause in the 1979 peace treaty that allows Egypt to maintain only one military division in most of Sinai, the area occupied by Israel during the Six Day War of 1967 until its withdrawal under the terms of the deal.
With Islamist militants establishing an increasingly threatening presence in Sinai, Israel has privately encouraged Egypt to ignore the treaty's provisions and send more security forces into the region.
But Israeli government officials say they would be strongly opposed to renegotiating any aspect of the treaty itself, saying such a move could lead to its wholesale collapse.
"It is widely known that Egypt has sent more troops than officially allowed by the treaty and it has done so with Israel's consent," one official said.
"We would agree to such ad hoc arrangements from time to time, but we would regard any attempt to open up specific articles of the treaty totally differently. It would cast a cloud and shadow over the whole treaty."
No comments:
Post a Comment