Arab League Chief: Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty Not As Sacred As The Koran

By Haaretz and Avi Issacharoff

The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Nabil Elaraby, told Al-Arabiya TV that the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is not as sacred as the Koran.

In an interview with Al-Arabiya TV, Elaraby, who served as Egypt's Foreign Minister before his appointment to the Arab League in July this year, said that if one of the sides breached the treaty, signed in 1979, the other side reserves the right to amend or annul it, according to an Israel Radio report.

Earlier Friday, the British weekly "The Economist" reported that Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel will soon allow Egypt to deploy thousands of troops in the Sinai Peninsula.

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin responded to Barak's interview with the Economist on Friday, saying that the deployment of Egyptian troops in Sinai, a violation of the Camp David Accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, may need the Knesset's approval – not only the government's.

MORE...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/arab-league-chief-egypt-israel-peace-treaty-not-as-sacred-as-the-koran-1.380876

The context is omitted.

The "subject to annulment if breached by either side" is a truly intriguing line.

It entails, 'We have breached the treaty; therefore we can annul it.' Such thinking I find bizarre.

And why does the word "Hudaibiyya" come to mind? Hmmm ... because perhaps then it's not part of a random series of utterances like "Tamil has a very old literary tradition. The Koran is more sacred than a secular treaty. The sky is blue. F=ma is messy in polar coordinates, but better than than orbital motion in Cartesian coordinates. The Goths entered Pannonia in the 320s. I posted my syllabus. The Khoei make an alcoholic beverage out of anacampseros."

Then again, to provide context is to say that a proponent of the Religion of Peace is saying that a hair-trigger approach to a peace treaty is divine, and that even if Egypt commits a violation Allah would be fine another Battle of Badr and would similarly help his chosen people, the Muslims.

Coincidentally, Operation Badr was the Egyptian "operation" against Israel in 1973.

That's what sovereignty is all about, you cannot be compelled. I find the whole line of argument stupid, I find the misuse of the word "sacred" stupid, though it would be OK as sarcasm or hyperbole, which MAY be the case here.

Eh?

built in mechanism or by violating the terms of agreement, there are usually consequences that can range from very minor to extremely severe such as war. Sovereignty does not mean you cant be compelled as the threat of economic, diplomatic, military or other consequences can compell you to keep to the agreement or was the reason it was entered in the first place.

People start talking about things being sacred and set-in-stone when they don't want to re-negotiate. When they do want to re-negotiate, all of a sudden it's all up in the air, ephemeral as a mayfly. So what this tells you here is that the Arab League Grand Poobah thinks re-negotiation is a good thing.