US tells Egypt it's okay to break treaty if Israel doesn't withdraw to 1949 armistice lines?

US tells Egypt it's  okay to break treaty if Israel doesn't withdraw to 1949 armistice lines?HT: IsraelMatzav.

Aaron Lerner has some very disturbing news from Secretary of State Clinton's remarks after her meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr on Saturday. It sounds like the Egyptians are laying the groundwork to break the Camp David treaty unless Israel agrees to the establishment of a 'Palestinian state' along the 1949 armistice lines, and that a second Obama administration may well back that position.

SECRETARY CLINTON: From prepared statement: More than three decades ago, Egypt and Israel signed a treaty that has allowed a generation to grow up without knowing war. And on this foundation, we will work together to build a just, comprehensive, regional peace in the Middle East based on two states for two people with peace, security, and dignity for all. We believe America’s shared strategic interest with Egypt far outnumber our differences.

From Q and A: Obviously, we think it’s important for all the nations in the region to try to maintain peace and stability, especially with so many economic challenges facing the region. And we certainly support the continuation of the peace agreement, because we think, as I said, it has brought great benefits to Egypt and will continue to do so, enabling the President to focus on the economic conditions and the internal political situation here in the country.

FOREIGN MINISTER AMR: (Via interpreter.) I would like to add something about the peace treaty. Mr. President has repeatedly reaffirmed, and on all occasions, that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. And today, he once again reiterated this issue and also reiterated that Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital. That's right. 
In her prepared remarks, Secretary Clinton put the treaty into the context of being a "foundation" for pushing for the creation of a Palestinian state. And that with a reference to the Obama teams favorite concept "dignity". ... This followed by what has now become a disturbing Egyptian sound bite that has become the standard Egyptian line;"that Egypt continues to respect all treaties signed as long as the other party to the treaty respects the treaty itself. "
And then we have an extremely dangerous addition that indicates how Egypt may justify the position that Israel has not respected the treaty: "Egypt’s understanding of peace is that it should be comprehensive, exactly as stipulated in the treaty itself. And this also includes the Palestinians, of course, and its right to – their right have their own state on the land that was – the pre June 4th, 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital."
Does this mean that it is now Egypt's position that Israel is not respecting the treaty if it declines to divide Jerusalem and retreat to the green line?
This is what Secretary Clinton said in response: [NOTHING]. 


Hmmmm.......Obama 'staunchest ally of Israel' - No, Jerusalem Is Not Part Of Israel......Yeah whatevah.Anyone thinking that Obama's 'defence' of Israel against Iran  wouldn't come at an unbearable price just got the bill!IT AIN'T SUDETENLAND it's Israel's Biblical territory!Read the full story here