Arab-Israeli Peace Can Work
Some Israelis are expressing shock that the Egyptian government is basically refusing to celebrate the 25 year anniversary of the Israeli-Egyptian peace with Israel. I dunno what everyone is so surprised about - the Egyptians have been acting as if the treaty doesn't exist for years now. But we here at Dejafoo are willing to celebrate the principles of this treaty - the desire for a world where human nature has been tamed and everyone lives in communes, sings songs with the animals, and votes for Democrats. So in honor of the anniversary, we thought we'd dust this old thing off and see how it's holding up:
Article I, Section I: The state of war between the Parties will be terminated and peace will be established between them upon the exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty...
Article III, Section 2: Each Party undertakes to ensure that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory...
Article III, Section 2 (con't): Each Party also undertakes to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party...
Article III, Section 3: The Parties agree that the normal relationship established between them will include full recognition, diplomatic, economic and cultural relations...
And in the world of international relations, we have:
Now, I'm not a scholar of international law. So I'm not saying that any of the above cases are, say, open violations of (in order) Article I, Section I, both parts of Article III, Section 2, and Article III, Section 3 , but to my untrained eye they kind of do look weird. Then again, I've never been able to grasp that particular nuance that causes "each party has an obligation" to be read as "Israel has an obligation," so I know I'm starting way behind when I'm trying to interpret international law anyway.
Article I, Section I: The state of war between the Parties will be terminated and peace will be established between them upon the exchange of instruments of ratification of this Treaty...
Article III, Section 2: Each Party undertakes to ensure that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory...
Article III, Section 2 (con't): Each Party also undertakes to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party...
Article III, Section 3: The Parties agree that the normal relationship established between them will include full recognition, diplomatic, economic and cultural relations...
And in the world of international relations, we have:
Now, I'm not a scholar of international law. So I'm not saying that any of the above cases are, say, open violations of (in order) Article I, Section I, both parts of Article III, Section 2, and Article III, Section 3 , but to my untrained eye they kind of do look weird. Then again, I've never been able to grasp that particular nuance that causes "each party has an obligation" to be read as "Israel has an obligation," so I know I'm starting way behind when I'm trying to interpret international law anyway.
