In a symposium on Egyptian-Israeli relations, participants believed a review of the peace treaty was needed, reports Doaa El-Bey Egyptian-Israeli relations came to the fore after the 25 January Revolution. More so, reviewing the peace treaty signed with Tel Aviv more than 30 years ago became a popular demand after Tel Aviv recently killed six Egyptian soldiers on the Sinai border, albeit by mistake. Popular anger was reflected in the attack on the Israeli Embassy last month and calls to annul or amend the peace treaty with Israel. Participants in a symposium called "Rereading Egyptian-Israeli relations in light of radical regional changes" said that major events like the revolution afforded a big opportunity to review agreements and treaties signed beforehand. Ehab Wahba, former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister, said that via the peace treaty Sinai was returned to Egyptian sovereignty. However, Wahba added, the fact that the oil pipeline passing through Sinai to Jordan was blown up more than once showed that the security arrangements in Sinai are not enough. "This is a chance to review the security arrangements stipulated in the treaty especially because the treaty said that they are temporary and subject to review at the request of one party. "We should engage in negotiations to review security arrangements in areas B and C. Although Israel recently agreed to deploy more forces in Area C, that was a decision taken at their discretion. It should be negotiated within the framework of a possible amendment to the treaty," Wahba said. Mohsen Hamdi, a member of the peace negotiations in Washington and head of the military committee supervising and restoring Sinai, said Egyptian negotiators managed through the treaty to take every part of Sinai without any change to the pre-1967 war borders, in addition to regaining all the treasures of the peninsula and re-operating the Suez Canal. "They did not give up or lease any part of Sinai as a concession for peace." Regarding security arrangements, Hamdi explained that Israel seeks to create a demilitarised zone in Sinai. "However, we accepted the security arrangements and the division of Sinai into three zones after conducting a thorough military study and practical points of view, about the size and nature of the arms and personnel needed to defend Sinai. "Given that we agreed on these forces 30 years ago and comparing them with the technological advancements made during these years, it is clear that the forces deployed in Sinai were enough for Egypt's defence purposes. The then minister of defence Kamal Hassan Ali described them as special forces in a special area for a special mission," Hamdi said. Nabil Fahmi, Egypt's former ambassador to the United States, pointed to the fact that the peace treaty should not govern the relationship between the two states and that ties between Cairo and Tel Aviv cannot be regarded separately from the relationship of the US with the two states. Fahmi outlined two detriments in the relationship with Israel; the first is how the other looks at you. "Although the political situation in Egypt is not yet stable, Cairo became a more respected and more influential power in the region after the revolution. The second is the changes in the region and its impact on Egypt." Regarding the peace treaty, Fahmi pointed to three possible scenarios: either cancel it altogether which would not necessarily lead to war but would have a big impact on the region; keep the status quo although that could be a dangerous option because the situation on the ground proves that the security side of the treaty needs to be reviewed; or review the treaty via negotiations. "Our criteria should be Egyptian interests, the political changes in the region and calculating gains and losses," Fahmi summed up. Ezzeddin Shoukri, a professor of international relations at AUC, said there were two factors governing foreign policy during the last three decades: the discrepancy between the official level of relations with Israel which was positive; the media and popular discourse about the relationship which reflected great enmity to Tel Aviv; and the deep- rooted feeling of inability to reach a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The new culture, he added, accompanying the revolution will not accept both factors. "Thus, all options are open to us provided that we open all closed files, especially what happened in the 6 October War and the real nature of our relationship with Israel. We need to discuss all these issues. The discussion will not be easy but we have no other option," Shoukri concluded. Qadri Hefni, a professor of psychology at Ain Shams University, pointed to the length of the Arab-Israeli conflict which has lasted for more than eight generations. "During that long period, the Israel picture was frozen in the minds of the people even after signing peace treaties between Egypt and Israel, and Jordan and Israel. But peace treaties are not designed to impose on people special behaviour towards the other," Hefni added. The authority before the revolution did not allow a rereading of the Egyptian- Israeli peace treaty, because it is supposed to defend the treaty that it signed. "But rereading or reviewing a peace treaty comes hand in hand with new and major events [like the revolution]," Hefni told the symposium. Gamal El-Ghitani, Egyptian thinker and writer, said that the peace treaty was imposed on the Egyptian people who never accepted it because they were not consulted beforehand. "The fact that a man was keen to climb 10 floors to the embassy to lower the Israeli flag reflects the scale of popular anger by the presence of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. "But what I failed to understand is that the prime minister honoured the man who scaled the building and gave him a job and an apartment. Is that to encourage other young people to follow suit in order to get a job and an apartment?" Thus, El-Ghitani believed that given that there is a new spirit in Egypt, it was a golden opportunity to amend the treaty. "It was signed under certain circumstances; now the circumstances have changed. In addition, there are many concessions in the peace agreement that are no longer acceptable including the low-scale presence of military forces and armament in Area C of the Sinai Peninsula." El-Ghitani also recommended providing more information about Israel on the basis of knowing the other side and drawing a line between knowing Israeli culture in order to understand them more and normalising relations with Tel Aviv. Emad Gad, from the Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, said that what happened at the Israeli Embassy "was a natural product of the discrepancy between the friendly official language and the hostile popular and media language against Israel. However, Israel is sure that Egypt will not annul the peace treaty. What worries Israel at present is the increasing role of public opinion. The situation inside Egypt, Gad added, changed and there is no need to sell Egypt's regional role for the sake of presidential inheritance as was the case since 2004. The message that Egypt is different and that it broke the fear barrier has reached Israel. Thus Tel Aviv will not want to test Cairo again, he said. Gad concluded by expressing hope that the present rulers in Egypt would think rationally and take into account Egypt's national interests in any decision taken regarding Egypt's relationship with Israel. The symposium was organised by the International Centre for Future and Strategic Studies (ICFS). It was part of a research project on orientations and determinants of Egypt's foreign policy after the 25 January Revolution.
