Posted on 03/24/2012 11:09:33 PM PDT by U-238
Egyptian security forces were able to foil a terror attack on Israeli vessels in the Suez Canal, Cairo's Al-Ahram weekly reported Saturday. According to the report, the Egyptian investigation into the matter concluded that the potential attacks were orchestrated by Iran. Egyptian authorities have two suspects in custody – Saliman Rizek abdel Razek and Salame Ahmed Salame.
The two deny any involvement, but according to the report authorities have evidence linking them, via the offer of a 50 million Egyptian pounds payment, to a third suspect – Muhammad Zakri – who they allegedly tried to hire to execute the attack.
Case details quoted by the paper say that Zakri was told he would be "paid by the Shiites," who ordered the attack on the backdrop of their hatred for Israel and their ties with Iran.
Earlier in march, Al-Ahram reported that two Israeli missile cruisers crossed the Suez Canal en route to an unknown destination. The IDF confirmed the reports, which further alleged that the INF Lahav and the INF Yaffo arrived in Egypt's Port Said under heave naval guard, along with a French vessel, where they joined other ships
(Excerpt) Read more at ynetnews.com ...
I don’t think Egypt’s revolution is quite over if the military is still helping Israel. Or maybe there was something really interesting on that ship.
Under international treaty, any ship (civilian or military) is permitted to transit the Suez Canal for any reason without being impeded. If Egypt doesn’t protect the open access arrangement for this waterway they may find that outside international forces would be more than willing to relieve them of their responsibilities.
Wasn’t my point. An attack by the iranian ship on an Israeli ship was foiled, it seems at least in part, by the Egyptian intelligence services. What does right of way have to do with it?
2. The Egyptian intelligence services are doing their job. Under the international treaty that governs the Suez Canal, they shouldn't be treating an Israeli ship any differently than any other ship.
I was just wondering why you seemed to find it so odd that Egypt's government would act this way.
1. My bad I assumed a ship would be attacked by another ship. I guess there could’ve been other ways.
2. You’re an idiot.
2. The few seconds you took to post that message probably would have been better spent educating yourself about these things.
I humbly ask you why a country that just elected the mb has a military that is still helping Israel? Sorry if you didn’t understand the original effing question.
One of the key provisions of the 1976 peace accord between Israel and Egypt was the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. The U.S. insisted on this provision of the accord because we recognized the idiocy of having a major maritime transportation route serving as the border between two hostile nations (as had been the case after 1967). This is why both the U.S. and the USSR were on the same side in 1956, and why fading empires like France and Britain and a small, inconsequential player like Israel were on the other side.
Without unfettered access through the Suez Canal, none of the major global powers has much use for Egypt ... regardless of whether it's run by Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak, or the Muslim Brotherhood. I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood knows this better than anyone, and acts accordingly.
Not looking for a fight but the Israeli ship didn’t start or end in the canal.
You assume the closure of the canal would be impossible and matched by force. Probably true, and unlikely it would happen, but not a certainty, by any means.
The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace, to every vessel of commerce or of war, without distinction of flag.
Consequently, the High Contracting Parties agree not in any way to interfere with the free use of the Canal, in time of war as in time of peace.
The Canal shall never be subjected to the exercise of the right of blockade.
If you don't think there would be a concerted military effort on the part of the U.S. (and others) to address any impediment to shipping in the Suez Canal, then you might be right. But keep in mind that the U.S. and Great Britain sent naval forces to the region in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 -- not to deal directly with the military conflict between Israel and Egypt, but to clear mines from the canal ... a project that took almost two years to complete.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Israeli vessels IN the Suez? I thought that was closed to us since 1956.
US warships are allowed in the Suez Canal.
The Israeli Navy can use the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal allows any country to pass as long its not in a state of war with Egypt.
But commercial traffic must be different. That goes to the Port of Eilat to and from the East, and to Jaffe, Acco, Ashdod, etc., to and from the West. The Six Day War was fought over, inter alia, Egyptian attempts to block Eilat shipping.
That goes for military traffic too. The US sends its warships through on a regular bases. the Iranians has sent their ships through since 1979.
There are rules of navigation set up by the Suez Canal Authority(all 213 pages worth)
http://www.luckydolphin.com/pdf/suez_canal_rules_of_navigation.pdf
Thanks for the link. You’re a fountain of good info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.