True, they actually have

Submitted by Senix (United States), Mar 29, 2009 at 19:09

>The Egyptians ( Al Masri in arabic I think) have enjoyed this one way peace treaty more than Israelis

1) diminished threat of war I thought the Arabs were the aggressors. The treaty does not protect the Egyptians from themselves; if they truly enjoy a diminished threat of war, it implies that someone else might have started one without it.

2) No oil for Israelis - or very little even though Israel financed the establishment of oil wells after the '67 war Maybe Egypt should compensate Israel for the startup costs. In return, I'm sure that Israel will gladly pay for the Egyptian oil they pumped between '67-'79.

3) tourism - very little if any from Egypt; tourism is really a 1 way thing; Israelis and many kibbutz volunteers from US, Canada and Europe enjoy seeing the sphinx and pyramids I fail to see why it is Egypt's fault the ancient Israelites built nothing that contemporary Egyptians are willing to pay to see. Maybe they need to invite in Disney.

4) Israel popularity amongst Egyptians I don't seem to recall a "and from now on you have to love us, too" provision in the treaty. Israel must do somehing bold and become the bully that the arab world will not bother with; Pity the Western Mandate Arabs hadn't though of that.

5) Take back the Sinai Oh yes, please, do. Israel could undoubtedly achieve it, too. and Israel can threaten to destroy the Al aswan dam in Egypt - impossible to protect and its destruction will cause great numbers of eventual deaths and sickness among the Egyptians Memo to Egypt: procure credible WMD deterrent now.

6) Take over the oil wells I believe that was implicit in #5.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".