Expert Warns Peace Deals Can Be Used as Deceptive Tactics, Citing Egypt-Israel Agreement Violations

Haggai Huberman argues that concerns about peace agreements serving as deceptive tactics are not new, citing the Oslo Accords and the Egypt-Israel peace treaty as examples. He highlights that these agreements included disarmament clauses and U.S. guarantees, yet violations occurred, undermining their intended security benefits.

Huberman references a recent exclusive report from Reshet Bet claiming that a country in the region advised another to sign a peace deal with Israel merely to lull it into complacency before breaking the agreement during a major conflict. He compares this to the Oslo Accords, which preceded the Second Intifada, resulting in thousands of Israeli casualties.

Former IDF General Amos Yadlin responded to the report by stating that peace agreements must include clear disarmament terms and side agreements with the United States to prevent breaches from escalating into attacks. Huberman counters that these mechanisms already existed in the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty but failed to prevent Egypt from violating the terms.

He details how Egypt has breached the disarmament clauses in Sinai for over a decade, increasing military infrastructure and forces far beyond permitted levels. This includes expanding bridges and crossings over the Suez Canal, constructing military-grade airfields, underground aircraft shelters, ammunition depots, and a large naval base north of Sinai. Egypt justifies the increased forces as counterterrorism measures, but many units are unrelated to such activities.

Huberman questions the effectiveness of the U.S. side agreement in enforcing compliance and asks what practical steps Israel should take given these repeated violations. He calls for actionable recommendations rather than theoretical assurances, emphasizing the need to learn from past experiences to avoid being misled by future peace deals.