Sissi's speech at the Tunis summit calls for the maintenance of Arab national security

Major General Mohamed Ibrahim, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, said that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's speech at the Arab summit in Tunis reflected Egypt's concern not only about the Arab reality, but also of the future of the Arab region, unless the Arab countries act seriously and aware of the dangers that surround them. On his interests and national security.

Sponsored links

A member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs published on Tuesday on the website of the Egyptian Center for Thought and Strategic Studies an analytical article entitled "From the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty to the Deal of the Century", which states that it might seem first sight, that the title of the article is strange, In the context of the relations between the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty signed on March 26, 1979 – four decades ago – and the "Deal of the Century" – the US plan should be presented in a few weeks, especially after the Israeli general elections scheduled for 9 April. Or following the formation of the new pile of Israel.
He stressed that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty will remain a milestone, not only in the history of bilateral relations between the two signatory states, but also in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

He explained this from the provisions of the treaty and the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Framework Agreement and what had already been implemented on the ground. In addition to the results obtained, the correlation between the peace treaty and the "Deal of the Century" and the aspects and nature of this correlation can be followed as follows:

– The treaty led to the complete withdrawal by Israel of all the lands of Sinai, the last being the withdrawal of Israel from Taba and the Egyptian flag on March 19, 1989.

– Egypt set a precedent in the history of the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242, in which it succeeded in forcing Israel to withdraw from Sinai in its together. In this way, we have abandoned the Israeli interpretation that resolution 242 provides for the withdrawal of territories, that is, a partial withdrawal, and not a withdrawal from all the territories that it has. has occupied.

– that the Treaty has imposed on Egypt no restriction of any kind, both with regard to the development of Sinai and in the area of ​​strengthening and strengthening its military capabilities, as we we are witnessing unprecedented growth in these areas.

– Egypt signed the Comprehensive Peace Framework Agreement on the Palestinian Question in the Middle East on October 17, 1978, six months before the signing of the peace treaty with Israel, confirming that the Palestinian issue was a priority in Egyptian interests at the beginning of its entry into force Peace is with Israel.

He added that "about this Egyptian approach to laying the foundation for a comprehensive settlement, I must mention the contents of the treaty and the comprehensive peace framework agreement and the letters mutual treaties annexed to the treaty on the Palestinian problem and how to settle it, as well as the form of settlement on other fronts, including the Golan ". As following:

– The principles of settlement provided for in the Convention (most of which are decisions of international legitimacy) should be applied to peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

– Transitional arrangements should be made for the West Bank and Gaza Strip for a period not exceeding five years to allow full autonomy, as well as negotiations to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza from here the end of the transition period.

– All negotiations are based on all the texts and principles contained in Security Council Resolution 242, which determine in particular the subject of borders and the nature of security arrangements.

– The three presidents (Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin) signed a letter on the day of the signing of the treaty (in March 1979), marking the beginning of a month of negotiations on autonomy, what has already been done.
– Egypt submitted to the United States, on 13 October 1978, a memorandum containing 23 "confidence-building measures" to be applied by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza, the most important being the freezing of settlement construction, the abolition of certain among them, the return of some displaced Palestinians, and the return of some public lands from the PA to Israel.

The author of the article analyzed the position of the United States of America following the war of June 5, 1967, which called for a just and lasting solution to the refugee problem, as well as the resolution 242 on the basis of a just and lasting peace in the region. Washington then played the role of a full and positive partner in the negotiations.

Major-General Ibrahim stressed that the American position, which one could call "historical position" (at that time), crystallized clearly on the most important Arab, Palestinian and Islamic questions, the question of Jerusalem , where Washington adopted a very advanced public position on this issue in the aftermath of the 1967 war. Can be explained as follows:

– Statement of the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, to the General Assembly in July 1967, according to which Washington neither accepts nor recognizes any measure Israeli unilateral attack in Jerusalem. The final and permanent status of Jerusalem.

– Statement by the United States Ambassador to the Security Council, Charles Yost, made on July 1, 1969, that Washington considers the part of Jerusalem that was under Israeli control during the 1967 war, 39, like other areas occupied by Israel, is therefore considered an occupied territory, any measure taken by Israel in Jerusalem.

"Of course, if we look at the positive attitudes of the Camp David treaty and the Camp David accords to the level of the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole, we can not say that these positions were ideal, or the results were quite typical, but it was the best results to achieve, This step in light of regional and international conditions and power struggles, and after the war of attrition and the great war of October 6, 1973, that Egypt's Is being beaten for the liberation of the country and the return of Arab dignity, only six years after the occupation of Sinai by Israel.

He added that "the most important negative aspects that have affected the Egyptian goal of reaching a just solution of the Palestinian problem are the negative attitude of the Arab world of the time, which not only has boycotted Egypt, but also sought to adopt opposing positions, the most important being the refusal of Palestinians and Syrians to participate in and follow the Egyptian peace process ", Transfer of the headquarters of the League of Arab States from Egypt in Tunisia.

In other words, the Arab states have left Egypt fighting a fierce battle in a political battle that would have been better illustrated by a strong and favorable Arab position, as was the case during the Great War of October 1973, which was the scene of an unprecedented Arab position. "

"If we move from the stage of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty to the achievements it has made, to the principles it has adopted in the interests of global peace, and guarantee that the United States act as full partners at all stages of the negotiations and jump to the current stage that began with the US invasion of Iraq, Libya, Libya and Yemen, as well as the entrance of these countries in the cycle of seeking the return of the state, it is clear that the Arab reality is ready for further deterioration and disintegration, not only that, but allowed the increase of Israeli power and the prelude to a free standardization with Arab countries, an unprecedented impact on one aspect of Arab national security. "

"In this climate, the United States has begun to crystallize the so-called (century-long agreement) on the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue, as well as certain measures related to regional security and security. Iran, "said a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
He explained that the administration of US President Donald Trump, since taking power to implement this agreement under several pretexts, the most important of which is the need to think about unconventional solutions recognizing the nature of reality on the ground, including the imperatives of Israeli security, adopted the following positions:

– Abandon the principle of the two-State solution, which was at the root of the solution of the Palestinian problem, whereas it had been an idea of ​​the United States since 2003.
– On December 6, 2017, President Trump decided to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to transfer the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and then to close the US Consulate in Jerusalem -Is.

– Take steps to put an end to the refugee problem, in particular to put an end to the financial support provided to UNRWA and to the work of certain institutions providing assistance and assistance to Palestine refugees.

– President Trump signed on March 25 a decision recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

– Abandon the status of "occupation" of the occupied Arab territories in 1967, in the latest report issued by the US State Department.
A member of the Egyptian Foreign Council said: "If it makes sense not to deal with the agreement of the century before it is formally presented, some of the main lines of the bill will be". The agreement gradually began to become clear thanks to statements by US officials that Israeli security was the most important principle: any political settlement, especially in the West Bank, as Israel has complete control of the Jordan Valley region. and may announce the imposition of sovereignty over it at a later stage, and that the security needs of Israel and the confrontation with Iran (according to these US statements) require not to to be neglected in the Golan Heights, The capital of Israel. "

"In my opinion, the" Century Deal "put an end to everything that the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty had attempted to establish in favor of the comprehensive peace process in the Middle East and to eliminate the chances of the Arab Peace Initiative at the 2002 Beirut Summit, Always Represents the Arab Vision for Resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict. "

"In this regard, it may be necessary, in my opinion, not to accept any incomplete, distorted and unfair settlement of the Palestinian issue, which falls within the framework of the first Arab National Security Service." The Arab world must not accept any settlement of the Palestinian question that does not meet the well-known Palestinian demands and constants, particularly with regard to an independent and sovereign Palestinian State at the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. "

"At the same time, it is necessary that Egypt seek as much as possible to reach the greatest Arab consensus to deal with any outside plan that could undermine Arab national security, both by entering into alliances and imposing blocs. unacceptable military charges, Or for the central Arab question, the Palestinian question ".

He stressed that it was necessary to unify the Arab position of the active countries, keeping in mind that relations between Egypt and the United States were a strategy to be preserved. and to develop, and that we should not forget that, in President Trump's time, Washington was putting a lot of pressure on the Arabs. Jerusalem, the refugees and the Golan.

"Egypt, in its historical role, which can not put an end to the challenges it faces, has always been willing to bear the Arab concerns and endure the consequences of the most difficult moments." The Egyptian position and lack of Arab position at the time, so that the Egyptian role remains the main role attributed to any agreement likely to undermine the Egyptian and Arab national security. The history, the people and the Egyptian rulers can only be a powerful and free decision-making power, in conflict, disagreements or disagreements with me from behind useless ".