Egypt has neglected northern Sinai for too long, and now it’s paying the deadly price
The Islamic State has yet to take responsibility for the attack on a Sufi mosque in northern Sinai on Friday that claimed 305 lives, but there is little doubt that it was carried out by Wilayat Sinai — an Islamic State affiliate in the Sinai. The organization has targeted Sufis before in other countries and it is currently the only insurgent group operating in Sinai capable of such a large-scale attack. Which leads to the question, why is ISIS, currently in retreat in its former main strongholds of Syria and Iraq, still capable of such operations, in Egypt of all places.
Unlike Syria and Iraq, where Islamic State took advantage of the vacuum created by civil war and demoralized armies, Egypt — despite political upheaval in recent years — still boasts the largest army in the Arab world and for over four years, has been ruled by the iron fist of a military regime. The Egyptian army does not lack for the resources to fight a counter-insurgency war in Sinai, including mobile armored vehicles and attack helicopters. Israel has green-lighted every Egyptian request to reinforce its units in the peninsula, despite the demilitarization protocols of the Camp David peace accords. And yet despite Egypt’s ongoing campaign to wipe out ISIS in Sinai — a campaign which, according to foreign reports, includes major assistance from Israel — the group still retains the capability of launching the sort of devastating attack we saw on Friday.
Egyptian army conscripts guard the Suez Canal University hospital, where the victims of an attack on a North Sinai mosque receive treatment, Ismailia, Egypt, November 25, 2017.MOHAMED EL-SHAHED/AFP
A year ago, the tide seemed to have turned in Sinai. In a series of attacks on Wilayat strongholds, the Egyptians succeeded in eliminating an estimated two-thirds of the ISIS fighters, including their commander Abu Du’a al-Ansari. They were down to around only 300 men when Muhammad al-Isawi, known in ISIS as Abu Osama al-Masri, an Egyptian who had fought with the group in Syria, took command. Al-Masri, with reinforcements, aid and supplies from Islamic State’s base in Libya has succeeded in reviving the organization, with its numbers back to around a 1,000 and more damaging attacks on both military and civilian targets.
According to intelligence sources, the Wilayat’s fighting force is made up of Egyptian Islamists, volunteers from other countries, including veterans of Syria and Iraq, and most crucially, members of local Sinai Bedouin tribes. Their zone of operations is the northern half of Sinai, while for the most part, the Red Sea coast region in the south, where thousands of Israelis spent their High Holidays vacation two months ago, has remained calm. This is not disconnected from the fact that while billions have been invested in building the Red Sea resorts, the villages and towns of the northern Mediterranean coast have remained underdeveloped. Until about three years ago, residents of the region were still making money from the open trade of the smuggling routes that run through the tunnels under the border with Gaza. Egypt has now destroyed all but a few of the tunnels, which are now used exclusively by Hamas and other Palestinian groups, for arms and personnel.
While the local Bedouin tribes in the south are loath to jeopardize their income from Red Sea tourism by cooperating with ISIS in the south, those in the less developed north have fewer qualms. Egypt is now paying the price for decades of neglect of northern Sinai. Its soldiers hunker down in armored vehicles and fortified positions, while the jihadists enjoy cover from local collaborators there and in the nearby mountain passes. Egypt’s energetic sponsorship of the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation agreement in recent months was mainly motivated by its interest in ensuring that Gaza doesn’t serve as Islamic State’s backyard — something it was in danger of becoming. But the Egyptians’ real problem is within its own territory. It has allowed northern Sinai to remain a black hole of resentment and radicalism for too long and is now paying the price.
@ Bear Klein:
No treaty has ever prevented war. The one time Isis accidentally got into a clash with Israeli forces, they apologized! Fear prevents war. Concessions which accompany treaties brings war and terror closer. If it doesn’t come from one quarter, it will come from another. There has been no peace. Israel lost strategic depth, oil, and economic benefits, plus Land! Jews were thrown out fo their homes and businesses. Just like the treaty with Jordan. There had been peace with Jordan since Israel whipped their asses in 1967. There is less peace since the treaty was signed. I don’t believe in treaties. Might makes right. Except when the enemy has it.
Sadat, divided Israeli society, he’s the one who turned Peres, and pitted America against Israel. He is the one who created the issue of a fake Arab Palestinian Homeland in Judea and Samaria and said peace with the Arab world was impossible without it. They act in concert. See the 9 anti-Israel resolutions the UN is about to enact with Muslim sponsorship, with a couple for the rest of the world. The Muslims are the enemy. Just because we can work with some of them in a limited way for mutual benefit doesn’t mean they don’t want us destroyed in the long run. Sadat laid the basis for the quartet, etc. If you read it, I’d love to hear a detailed rebuttal of his arguments and evidence. It sure seems like a no-brainer to me.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I read it and my view on the treaty is not changed. There are many things to learn from history but some things can only be learned first hand to appreciate them. Israelis wanted and needed to try this peace treaty with Egypt. So far the no war aspect with Egypt has been mutually beneficial to both Israel and Egypt.
I did not read it yet Sebastian. 40 years of no war so far is a good start for peace for me.
The desperate desire for peace leads to appeasement which, in turn, always hastens the onset of the very war it was supposed to prevent. We have seen this over and over in history going way back. That’s how the Buddhist cultures of India, Pakistan,Bangladesh,and Afghanistan were destroyed. That’s the background to the present conflict in Myanmar.
@ Bear Klein:
Please read the Eidelberg and tell me what you think? Personally, I agree with his thesis that Sadat successfully fooled you all using the divide and conquer tactics Hitler perfected in the 30s. Not hyperbole. Sadat was a student of Hitler’s strategies.. Written in 1979. Prophetic, in my opinion.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I moved to Israel right after the Yom Kippur War. I went to funerals of soldiers I did not know. I became friends with many people who had fought in the war.
How would I put it people were happy and excited for a chance at peace. It ended up being a cold peace and is far from perfect. The Egyptians paid a huge price for their wars trust me. They wanted no more war with Israel. Giving them all the land back saved face for Sadat and allowed peace (yes it was a very heavy price). It cost Sadat his life to make peace with Israel. When he came and visited Israel it was easy to predict he would be murdered by an Arab.
Funny thing I read the other day after the ISIS attack on the Sufi mosque a couple of pickup trucks of the terrorists who struck the mosque were killed by drone strikes. I am not aware of Egypt having any drones with those capabilities. I do not believe the USA is operating drones anywhere near the Siani (I could be wrong on that). So did the IDF kill these terrorists?
It also disincentives peace because the enemy knows there will be no permanent price to pay and therefore makes war risk free.
Relinquishing territory just brings the battle front closer to home, as Kahane pointed out in the parable of the stinking fish cited above.
I agree at this time. But, not then. Egypt was already out of the equation after 4 lost wars. Sadat launched what became Oslo then to use diplomacy where force failed. See Eidelberg. Sadat’s Strategy. 1979.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://afsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/SadatsStrategy_Eidelberg1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwisgqLhjeLXAhVFSyYKHRDsCWsQFghbMAo&usg=AOvVaw0sbg_yub5nUhg8fmf3LMMW
or
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Sadats-Strategy-Paul-Eidelberg/dp/B000LY22R4&ved=0ahUKEwisgqLhjeLXAhVFSyYKHRDsCWsQFghWMAg&usg=AOvVaw2YtFUtrIaoxTRaQ3o3hOJN
@ Sebastien Zorn:
As imperfect as making a treaty is with any Arab Nation I thought at the time and still do that the treaty with Egypt was the correct one. It took the largest Arab Army out of the equation for war with Israel.
This then lead to Jordan wanting also not to get into any more wars with Israel. This lead to Syrians losing their appetite for full scale war.
This helped Israel develop and change the wars we have to more of a series of battles that are costly but not threatening the survival of the state. Also it allowed the country to focus on more than life and death wars.
At least for now.
I would venture a guess if a poll of Israelis was done today, do you want to reconquer the Siani and trash the treaty with Egypt, the poll would be 90% or more saying no. At least while Al-Sisi is in charge. The Egyptians are actually getting help from Israel in fighting ISIS in the Siani via intelligence and other tactical help. Trouble is Egypt does not get Siani and fights too slow (no real special forces).
@ CuriousAmerican:
ibid
@ CuriousAmerican:
Exactly as Kahane laid it out in his book, “They Must Go.”
amazon has it.
also free pdf here
https://archive.org/stream/TheyMustGoMeirKahane/They%20Must%20Go%20Meir%20Kahane_djvu.txt
@ CuriousAmerican:
Bear in mind, I am neither proposing citizenship nor autonomy for them bur permanent Israeli military occupation with compensated emigration.
It’s a myth that “one cannot occupy another people forever.” Actually, that’s the norm in history. Democracy, as originally defined, only applied to citizens, however defined.Let’s get back to that.
@ CuriousAmerican:
So what? I agree with the following article from 1976. It turned out to be prophetic, no?
http://barbaraginsberg-kahane.blogspot.com/2014/09/israel-us-and-stinking-fish-1976.html
Assuming Israel stayed, there would be another 500,000 to 1 million Arabs under Israeli rule – More Muslims to tilt the demographic. And there would be a hostile administration in Egypt.
Can you image the hollering then?
Begin was a fool. Israel should never have left. 242 was a mistake too. Israel should not have agreed to relinquish any territory.