Is the New York Times this crazy or this stupid or this biased?

The former newspaper of record is advocating a policy that led to a major war.  Is the editorial board ignorant, or is its mendacity just overwhelming its common sense?

The New York Times uses its editorial page to push for a very dangerous idea: removing the Sinai peacekeeping force that has played a crucial role in ensuring peace between Egypt and Israel ever since it was established as part of the peace agreement in 1979 following the tragic 1973 war between those nations.

The editorial, “Time to Reassess Sinai Peacekeeping Force,” promotes the idea that such a force is no longer needed to separate Israel and Egyptian military forces and ensure they abide by the peace terms.  The column notes there has been an uptick in ISIS-related violence in the Sinai.  But this has been directed towards Egyptian forces and not the peacekeepers.  Nevertheless, the paper conveys the idea that the forces are in peril.

The violence, which has endangered and significantly restricted the mobility of the peacekeepers, is good reason to consider pulling them out of Sinai. An attack on the multinational force of more than 1,600 troops could open a new front in the American-led war against the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has an offshoot in Sinai.…

Concerns about security grew after the June 9 mortar attack on al-Gura airport, which is adjacent to one of the peacekeeping force’s large camps. In a statement, Wilayat Sinai, a militant group that calls itself a local affiliate of the Islamic State, referred to the peacekeepers as “crusader forces” that are backing Israel. Several of the nations that contribute troops or money to the force are part of the American-led coalition against the Islamic State.

The multinational force, which had a $82.6 million budget in 2014, ended the fiscal year with a $606,000 shortfall. It estimates that the gap will increase to $9 million for the 2016 fiscal year and $20 million by the 2020 fiscal year. While the cost is certainly worth taking into account, the paramount consideration needs to be the risk to the peacekeepers. With nearly 700 troops, the United States has the largest contingent. Colombia and Fiji, which each have an infantry battalion in Sinai, are the two other leading troop contributors.

The force has played a vital role in firmly sealing a historic peace agreement that has held to this day. By any measure, it has been a success. Egypt and Israel will continue to need international military assistance and diplomatic engagement to address regional security threats, but the peacekeepers are not currently playing a role that is instrumental enough to justify the perils they face.

The budget concerns, coming from a paper that has never seen government spending it can oppose (except for America’s defense), actually argues that a rounding error in America’s massive spending justifies considering removing the relatively small force.  They have helped ensure a peace that has lasted decades.  Had war erupted between those nations, the costs to the world economy would have dwarfed the small amount of spending that keeps the force in the Sinai.

While it may be true that Egypt under its leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has a mutually productive engagement with Israel that has operated to reduce terrorism and enmity between the two nations, it was only two years ago that Egypt was under control of the vile Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoot, Hamas, thrived with its allies in control in Cairo and committed terrorism against Israel.

Egypt is an unstable nation and can flip back to being in control of the Muslim Brotherhood at any time.  If the peacekeeping force were removed, the Brotherhood would face few constraints in once again empowering Hamas if not ignoring the peace treaty with Israel and moving military forces into the Sinai.  The Muslim Brotherhood would end cooperation with Israel and help terrorists not just in Gaza, but also in the Sinai attack Israel thus risking an all-out war with Israel.

Furthermore, is the New York Times editorial board ignorant of the fact that the last time peacekeeping forces were removed between Israel and Egypt in 1967, war erupted?  Egypt, under its then-president Gamal Abdel Nasser, demanded that the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the Sinai be expelled.  The U.N. readily agreed and left.  Egypt then made clear preparations for a war to destroy Israel as its leadership announced.  Israel struck first, and war came to the Middle East.

The peacekeeping force in the Sinai has worked to preserve peace between Israel and Egypt.  Maybe that is why the New York Times advocates its removal.

The former newspaper of record is advocating a policy that led to a major war.  Is the editorial board ignorant, or is its mendacity just overwhelming its common sense?

The New York Times uses its editorial page to push for a very dangerous idea: removing the Sinai peacekeeping force that has played a crucial role in ensuring peace between Egypt and Israel ever since it was established as part of the peace agreement in 1979 following the tragic 1973 war between those nations.

The editorial, “Time to Reassess Sinai Peacekeeping Force,” promotes the idea that such a force is no longer needed to separate Israel and Egyptian military forces and ensure they abide by the peace terms.  The column notes there has been an uptick in ISIS-related violence in the Sinai.  But this has been directed towards Egyptian forces and not the peacekeepers.  Nevertheless, the paper conveys the idea that the forces are in peril.

The violence, which has endangered and significantly restricted the mobility of the peacekeepers, is good reason to consider pulling them out of Sinai. An attack on the multinational force of more than 1,600 troops could open a new front in the American-led war against the Islamic State, or ISIS, which has an offshoot in Sinai.…

Concerns about security grew after the June 9 mortar attack on al-Gura airport, which is adjacent to one of the peacekeeping force’s large camps. In a statement, Wilayat Sinai, a militant group that calls itself a local affiliate of the Islamic State, referred to the peacekeepers as “crusader forces” that are backing Israel. Several of the nations that contribute troops or money to the force are part of the American-led coalition against the Islamic State.

The multinational force, which had a $82.6 million budget in 2014, ended the fiscal year with a $606,000 shortfall. It estimates that the gap will increase to $9 million for the 2016 fiscal year and $20 million by the 2020 fiscal year. While the cost is certainly worth taking into account, the paramount consideration needs to be the risk to the peacekeepers. With nearly 700 troops, the United States has the largest contingent. Colombia and Fiji, which each have an infantry battalion in Sinai, are the two other leading troop contributors.

The force has played a vital role in firmly sealing a historic peace agreement that has held to this day. By any measure, it has been a success. Egypt and Israel will continue to need international military assistance and diplomatic engagement to address regional security threats, but the peacekeepers are not currently playing a role that is instrumental enough to justify the perils they face.

The budget concerns, coming from a paper that has never seen government spending it can oppose (except for America’s defense), actually argues that a rounding error in America’s massive spending justifies considering removing the relatively small force.  They have helped ensure a peace that has lasted decades.  Had war erupted between those nations, the costs to the world economy would have dwarfed the small amount of spending that keeps the force in the Sinai.

While it may be true that Egypt under its leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has a mutually productive engagement with Israel that has operated to reduce terrorism and enmity between the two nations, it was only two years ago that Egypt was under control of the vile Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoot, Hamas, thrived with its allies in control in Cairo and committed terrorism against Israel.

Egypt is an unstable nation and can flip back to being in control of the Muslim Brotherhood at any time.  If the peacekeeping force were removed, the Brotherhood would face few constraints in once again empowering Hamas if not ignoring the peace treaty with Israel and moving military forces into the Sinai.  The Muslim Brotherhood would end cooperation with Israel and help terrorists not just in Gaza, but also in the Sinai attack Israel thus risking an all-out war with Israel.

Furthermore, is the New York Times editorial board ignorant of the fact that the last time peacekeeping forces were removed between Israel and Egypt in 1967, war erupted?  Egypt, under its then-president Gamal Abdel Nasser, demanded that the U.N. peacekeeping forces in the Sinai be expelled.  The U.N. readily agreed and left.  Egypt then made clear preparations for a war to destroy Israel as its leadership announced.  Israel struck first, and war came to the Middle East.

The peacekeeping force in the Sinai has worked to preserve peace between Israel and Egypt.  Maybe that is why the New York Times advocates its removal.