CAIRO: Thirty years after the signing of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in Washington on March 26, 1979, local opposition to the treaty and its conditions continues to grow.
Opposition centers on the terms of the treaty that are perceived to be unfavorable to Egypt, specifically the security restrictions on Sinai and the fact that 30 years later, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict persists, even though treaty had been conceived as a basis for its resolution.
“We do not control Sinai completely, is that fair? There are many things in this treaty that need changing, said former coordinator of the Kefaya movement George Ishaq.
Under the terms of the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai, the peninsula was split into four zones and the treaty placed restrictions on the types and number of troop movements in the area.
Multinational Forces and Observers (MFOs), an independent international organization created by Egypt and Israel, are present throughout the international borderline between Egypt and Israel.
About 1500 in all, the MFOs’ main camp is at El-Gorah, 37 km southeast of Al-Arish in North Sinai. Another camp lies in South Sinai’s Sharm El-Sheikh, where there are about 30 other smaller checkpoints. In what is known as Zone C, bounded by line B (green line) on the west and the International Boundary and the Gulf of Aqaba on the east, only Egyptian civil police, not military, are allowed to be stationed there.
Deputy Head of the Muslim Brotherhood Mohamed Habib said that the treaty should not be in place while Israel continues to occupy the Palestinian territories. “We refused Camp David and the peace treaty from day one and we still do. We believe that the Zionist entity is an occupier of Arab and Muslim land. There cannot be recognition of this entity as long as it continues this occupation. We believe its actions are a threat and danger to Arab and Egyptian national security, he said.
The treaty was formulated as a precursor for future treaties between Israel and other Arab nations and its framework was supposed to form the basis of future negotiations.
Waheed Al-Aqsari, chairman of the Arab Socialist Party, said, “The treaty did not reflect the hopes and ambitions of the Egyptian and Arab people.
The treaty was not properly respected by Israel. The Palestinian issue was not resolved as the treaty entailed. It should be rewritten to indicate a more accurate picture of Israel’s obligations.
“It also split the Arab people. [Former President] Sadat should not have signed this treaty to then allow Israel to exploit the neutrality of Egypt for 30 years, he added.
Believing that Egypt made too many concessions to attain this peace, those opposed to the treaty feel that if it is not to be disbanded, it should at least be modified.
Ishaq said, “Camp David is not a sacred cow. It’s been 30 years and we need to reconsider it because the other party has not adhered to many tenets of this treaty and we keep watching, hands tied, and continue to respect the treaty. The world has changed and the reality has changed.
Ishaq contested the view that to oppose the treaty means to return to a state of war with Israel. “To say this does not mean we want war, he said, “those who claim that are just scaremongering.
Habib argued that the treaty had not been beneficial and needed to be approved by the Egyptian people in a national referendum.
He said, “This treaty had many negative effects on Egypt and its interests, in addition to the effect on the Arabs. Sinai is not completely under our control so the Egyptian regime should take another look at this treaty and it should be subjected to a national referendum.
Al-Aqsari said, “We must ask Israel to respect all the tenets of the treaty; if they don’t then we should resort to the international community through the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court. Sadat said the treaty would also solve the Palestinian problem, so Egypt should force Israel to respect that.
