Last week, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of the Hamas government in Gaza called on Egypt to revise the Camp David Accords, which were signed with Israel. His speech came after the kidnapping and later release of Egyptian security personnel in Sinai by radical jihadist groups.

The debate about the peace treaty with Israel is not new. It is as old as the treaty itself. The recent deterioration of security in Sinai, however, particularly after the ouster of the Mubarak regime, has reinvigorated the debate about the Camp David Accords. This is especially the case regarding amendment of the security arrangement in Sinai.

It may look like an easy fix; let’s bring the Egyptian army in to combat terrorism in the increasingly lawless peninsula, but it's not. When Sadat signed the Camp David Accords with Israel, he was a leader of the state of Egypt, forging a deal with the aim of ending the animosity with Israel and kick starting a wider peace process to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. The military annex was negotiated within that context, preserving the peace between two nations. Thirty-four years later, Haniyeh’s speech reflects the new reality; there is neither a peace nor a two-nation deal. Security in the Sinai has become a dodgy threesome affair.

In 1979, Gaza was never part of the equation and there was no way to envisage that Hamas and other radical groups would ever be part of the situation. In 2013, Sinai is a different story. There is a new post-revolution, Islamist leadership in Cairo; a porous border with Gaza, with complex networks of tunnels (most of there are still intact despite the Egyptian army’s systematic efforts to destroy them over the last few months); and radical groups already settled in Sinai, undermining security to further their own agendas. The recent kidnapping incident has exposed the clashing goals and interests of all the players in Egypt, Gaza and Israel.