Egypt has been a full partner with Israel in the Gaza blockade ever since it began. They have also been resolute about banning immigration from Gaza to Egypt, including refugees in the current war. Why? Over at New York, Benjamin Hart asks Steven Cook:
I think that the Egyptian position on this is a principled position, which is that if they start allowing Palestinians into the Sinai Peninsula, the Israelis will push Palestinians there.... From the Egyptian perspective, allowing large numbers of Palestinians in the Sinai Peninsula would basically be helping to enable ethnic cleansing. So that’s the point that they have been making to various international interlocutors. And they have not been willing to bend on this, except on this question of wounded Palestinians.
There is, of course, an alternate, less principled possibility: Egypt has never liked Palestinians and still doesn't. They treated the Gaza Strip as occupied territory during their accidental 20-year control, and during that time made an open mockery of Gaza's supposed Palestinian government. Palestinians in Gaza were never granted Egyptian citizenship and emigration was always tightly restricted. Egypt made no effort to hold onto Gaza after losing it in the 1967 war and officially gave it up a decade later. Their passion for keeping Gazans in Gaza has always been justified by endless expressions of support for "the Palestinian cause," but real-world actions suggest that the most important part of this cause has been making sure that Palestinians live anywhere other than in Egypt.
Egyptians hate both Jews and Palestinians. Maybe there's common ground here.
Somewhere I read that "among the religious everybody hates Muslims. Among Muslims everybody hates Arabs. Among Arabs everybody hates Palestinians."
Egypt may or may not hate Palestinians. But you know who else hates Palestinians? Israel. And greenlighting large scale population flows from Gaza would indeed be helping Netanyahu engage in ethnic cleansing.
Not all Israelis.
Working online brings in $285 dollars an hour for me. My best buddy shows me how to do this and makes $29,000 a month doing it, but I never realized it was real, visit the sa03 following link to have.
A look at it------------------------------------>>> https://dailyincome95.blogspot.com/
Notice he said Israel, not Israelis.
According to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, the Arab population in 2019 was 1,890,000, representing 21% of the country's population. About half of them say they are "Israeli Palestinian". So that is about 1 million Israeli Palestinians. I really doubt that most Jews in Israel hate them.
As for the non-Israeli Palestinians, I really doubt that most Jews in Israel hate them either. Polls of Israelis and non-Israeli Palestinians show that both sides would like a two-state solution. But getting there has been extremely difficult.
... Or maybe you were referring to the Israeli state as painedumonde suggests below.
And, for sure, frustrating Netanyahu is a worthwhile goal. But it's a terrible reason to refuse passage to people who are desperate to get out of harm's way.
Many Palestinians don't want to leave Gaza or the West Bank. But every last one who DOES want to get out should be able to get out. It's an outrage that they can't.
If it were in my power to do so, I'd throw open the gates here and admit to the US every last Palestinian from the occupied territories who wants to come live here.
I guess it'd be nice if they all wanted to stay put? To deny Bibi the ethnic cleansing success he pretty clearly wants? But that's a decision each Palestinian ought properly to be empowered to make for herself. Far-away well-wishers who want them to stay in a war zone because their continued presence there is inconvenient to Bibi ought to volunteer to take their place.
Also, Egyptians are not like Palestinians and particularly Hamas, in that they've fully embraced secular government for over a century and are wary of people who may end up pushing Egypt towards religious radicalism. The military took back power after elections had brought the Muslim Brotherhood into power, if you recall.
How do you square this: "they've fully embraced secular government for over a century and are wary of people who may end up pushing Egypt towards religious radicalism."
With this: "The military took back power after elections had brought the Muslim Brotherhood into power,"
If elections brought the Muslim Brotherhood into power, it looks like a majority of Egyptian voters embraced religious radical government.
No it does not.
The Brotherhood win was largely based on a reform agenda in campaigning, not on a radical one. They got Coptic votes.
The initial support to the Sissi coup d'état was very much due to public souring on the Brotherhood focusing on cultural and religious rather than reform.
So no, Egyptians did not vote for a radical religious government
I read that Hamas has contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood--and the current Egyptian gov't. really doesn't like the Muslim Brotherhood.
Working online brings in $285 dollars an hour for me. My best buddy shows me how to do this and makes $29,000 a month doing it, but I never realized it was real, visit the sa02 following link to have.
A look at it---------------------------------->>> https://paymoney54.blogspot.com/
Meh.
Weak article.
First of all, a distinction has to be made between the Egyptian people and the Egyptian government. The Egyptian people are very pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel; the governments don't want to have open conflict with Israel and don't want to stop receiving the money they get from America for being at peace with Israel.
For the people, it very likely is exactly the case that they don't want to assist ethnic cleansing by the Israelis by accepting Palestinian refugees; for the government, they have enough of a hard time giving lip service to agreeing with their population's anti-Israel sentiment but not doing anything about it. They don't need a significant Palestinian population among their own to continually remind everyone that their government doesn't really do anything to resist Israel.
It's not like the U.S. is big on accepting refugees.
One should further note that the likely location of such displacement is into the Sinai which is already ethnically problematic for Egypt, as the nomads of the Sinai hardly identify with the Nile people, a rather ancient division going all the way bacl to ancient times (and yet remains modern, Egyptian security is heavy in Sinai for a reason).
Adding Palestinian explusion to the mix gets them a nasty brew rather ressembling Southern Lebanon circa early 80s.
And zero political upside - not Palestinian, not Egyptian (Nile nor Sinai) not Arab region... oh I suppose some very unreliable love from USA to fund this....
It would not take great imagination to see how Israel would respond from the would be Palestinian camps in Egypt upon been bombarded with rockets. So maybe there is more than one reason.
Even less imagination if you just look at Lebanon.
Indeed, the Egyptians unlike Americans sitting thousands of KMs away are quite aware of the Lebanese example -and on multiple fronts (including exactly zero Palestinian political request for this so lose-lose-lose) not in their interest....
I mean, if there was ZERO Palestinian interest in relocating to Egypt, why do they need that big scary gate at the border?
Both reasons can be, and are, true.
Unlike much of the time around here where through a mix of analysis, snark, and trolling the way to address a problem emerges- well, not this time.
There are plenty of examples of separatist movements, Northern ireland, Québécoise, Basque, Catalan, where you can see what level of violence, or reduction thereof, can produce a political solution.
The Palastinians are not close to any version of the Good Friday Agreement as far as I can see, there is no political wing of Hamas that is doing any negotiating. It appears to be a war footing which is why we are witness to a war.
What seperatist movement are you referring to? Legally Gaza and the West Bank are not and never have been part of Israel and Hamas's stated political aim is to eliminate Israel completely. The current Israeli government includes radical settler parties that want to take over the West Bank and Gaza completely and don't recongnize Palestinians as a seperate nationally at all. These two positions made war inevitable.
This conflict didn't just appear out of nowhere in 1920, and, after that, the other key mistake many people make is the idea that anything the European powers have done, any imposition they've tried to make upon the region, had any chance of achieving anything. In fact not one of them, from the Balfour Declaration to any UN partition plan succeeded in anything whatsoever. They were trying to impose a limited, simplified, Eurocentric view on circumstances that were in no way European and entirely medieval.
This is something that happened nearby in 1860,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_civil_conflict_in_Mount_Lebanon_and_Damascus
Does it seem familiar?
"There is, of course, an alternate, less principled possibility: Egypt has never liked Palestinians and still doesn't
Agreed and they should not be forced to take in refugees from a military conflict with Israel involved. And any large number of Palestinians and Hamas in the Sinai could distabilize the whole country. However, given the amount of U.S. aid Egypt receives and the fact many in this country have and continue to look the other way in regards to the rule of military regime (for obvious reasons), the bottom line is they owe us. All one should ask is for Egyptian police and army units to police the region after Israel is gone, or some joint Arab force or administration.
As additionally, the Sinai itself is not entirely stable for Egypt as the Bedouine of the Sinai are not particularly enamoured of the Nile dwellers - an old and long-standing division that mere sharing of Arabic language hasn't changed.
Now take additionally that the Egyptians have the examples of Lebanon and Jordan to observe that enabling an ethnic cleansing via refugee explusions will only mean that they, like Lebanon, end up saddled with a large population at their own cost that will be heavily dedicated to understandable Revanchism, but also politically and economically destabilising.
Now one can also look the the great enthusiasm (this is sarcasm) on the part of the Slovaks, the Poles for Ukrainian long-term refugrees (or Mexican cross border families in South Western USA) and really it is the height of blind American ignorance to be pointing a finger to Egypt for not having any enthusiasm for serving Americano-Israeli interests (one does not see Palestinians themselves clamouring for their own explusion) over their own.
Ethnic cleansing is how Israel started.
An excellent reminder. I hope I survive long enough to see commemorations and museums dedicated to the Nakhba, and not just all that pro-Zionist stuff. Maybe one day, "A Day in the Life of Abed Salama " will become as ubiquitous and required reading as the Anne Franke thing (copies of which filled an entire shelf in the middle school my offspring attended.)
"the Anne Franke thing" [sic]? You doubt the Holocaust? Or the Nazi occupation of Holland? Too "pro-Zionist" for you? At least your "offspring" have not been sent to an extermination facility.
It seems the Netanyahoo MIGA types have brought out some ambivalent, nearly (fully?) antisemitic responses in America.
While fucked up and presented in bad taste, is that really semitic? Because that's not what I just read. I read that the forced partition during the creation of the state of Israel and all the pain it entailed should be read alongside the personal view of genocide and the shame that every human should feel because of it.
"Ethnic cleansing is how Israel started."
Yes, after the Holocaust and the ethnic cleansing of 6,000,000 Jews.
And after centuries of Jews being designated as dhimmi, giving them inferior status, in Muslim-controlled countries. In the early years of the Islamic conquest, Jews just had to pay a yearly poll tax. Later, dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices-as that might offend the Muslims. The dhimmi had to show public deference toward Muslims-always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. Dhimmis were also forced to wear distinctive clothing. And then there were the massacres of Jews …
And Christian European countries were often even worse to the Jews. The final culmination of this was the Holocaust.
If I was a Jew in the 1940s, I’d have been looking to create a safe haven for Jews too.
Egypt does not want to take Palestinian refugees because that would be an enabler for Israel.
Israel is, under law, required to take care of the refugees and to allow them to return to their homes.
Why would, or should, Egypt help Israel commit war crimes?
In addition, housing and feeding 2 million people is not a small matter. Israel has shown that it is not willing to pay for them. Why should Egypt?
Nor is Egypt a partner in the blockade. A blockade refers to stopping ships (on the ocean), and it is only Israel that shoots and sinks and captures ships trying to go to Gaza.
Israel only allows one crossing in to Egypt, and that is under the control of Israel. Israel was given sole "responsibility for security throughout the passage, including for the terminal." Additionally, an Israeli director general was charged with sole "responsibility for the management and security of the terminal."
Yes, Israel has soldiers vetting every person that goes out and every truck of goods coming in.
This should be obvious to any one who hears that Israel limits the import of such "dual -use" items as Chocolate and Horse Medicine: how could Israel limit it unless it had control of every border.
Not only is Israel not providing food or housing for the Gazans, it has been actively preventing them from providing for themselves! By blockading all traffic in or out, Gazans can't have international trade which would earn them money. Their ability to farm is heavily restricted, due to the embargoes, lack of land, and Israeli soldiers taking potshots if they get within shouting distance of the border wall.
And of course, building materials are forbidden into Gaza, because. Nonetheless, Gazans had many schools, at least one university, many hospitals, and a whole society built up ... even after Israel's frequent "mowing the grass": what Israelis like to call mass murder and wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure.
I truly fail to understand why the United States's official position is to blind to these facts.
The Gaza Strip has been the worlds largest terrorist training camp for a long time. Once these terrorists start attacking western targets, there will be sufficient justification for its complete destruction. And screw the Egyptians.
Maybe they are smart enough to avoid attacks against civilians in the US and Europe, but it sure seems like they have a big following here so it’s just a matter of time. Bring it on.
Is the assumption that the Egyptians are Arabs and the Palestinians are Arabs, so they all belong in the same place?
There is more solidarity with Palestinians from protesters here and around the world than there is from Arab (and other) states in the Middle East.
Regardless which is Egypt's true motivation they are right: Accepting Gaza people into Sinai would be assisting ethnic cleansing. Obviously Egypt is in no position to teach the world human rights but that does not change the strength of their argument.
Egypt does not want the Palestinians from Gaza. Jordan does not want the Palestinians from the West Bank. Israel does not want the Palestinians from Gaza or West Bank. The Palestinians do not want a two-state solution, where they would be one of the states. Suggestions, anyone?
Tell each and every person to follow the dictates of peace their supposed God has taught them and ignore their parents' exhortations for revenge. Or not and stop pussy footing around and get it on.
Added: I say this with a full stomach, clean water within reach, warm in my home, connected to the Internet, secure behind doors without fear of a rocket or bomb landing outside it.
Why do you say the Palestinians do not want a two state solution rather than that the Israelis do not? After all the person who came closest to offering a two state solution was Abbas, and it failed by not having the Palestinians get a full state. Presumably he thought his proposal would lead to one eventually.
It is true that Hamas does not want a two state solution, but it doesn't follow that the Palestinians as a whole do not. By contrast, Israel has worked every year to make a two state solution less possible. The only reason there was optimism in the 90s and none now is that Israeli settlements have expanded to such a great degree.
Abbas has rejected every two-state solution presented to him and countered with a daydream of the extermination of Israel as his 'solution'.
Even if he accepted a proposal there is no evidence he could ever make good on it. Once he's gone Fatah is gone and the people of the West Bank will vote for Hamas or whoever succeeds them.
By every two state solution offered to him you mean Olmert's offer that would have left all borders under the control of the Israelis and would have left a settlement block cutting East Jerusalem off from the West Bank? Which is to say he was never offered an actual two state solution. By contrast, Abbas was willing to accept the same terms if Olmert stopped insisting on settlement blocks that would interfere with moving towards an actual two state solution.
It is an interesting question whether Israel would have made good on a two state solution if it agreed to one. After all, of the three leaders who came closest to offering peace, one was assassinated and the other two were immediately voted out of office.
'Police' here having the meaning of 'occupy'. Which might not be a deal breaker... in some sense the non-democratic Egyptian government 'occupies' its entire population.
Still, this probably explains why the Egyptian government doesn't want the Palestinians - they're effective at fighting occupiers and (unlike with Israel) there's a real chance they could get the Egyptian population onside and topple the government.
Look what they did to Lebanon.
The Palestinians are not going to get 'the Egyptian people' on side.
The Palestinians could possibly have some echo with the Bedouine of the Sinai, ethnically distinct from the Nile, speaking even a dialect rather close to Palestinian (and not Nile Egyptian). But like Lebanon they would be marginals and crushed.
Of course saying the Palestinians are effective at fighting occupiers is ... rather a strange statement given the track record to date.
In fact they have been spectacularly ineffective and incompetent in fighting said occupiers, showing a thoroughly autistic sense of use of violence that has never been very effective at gaining support. The terrorism (secular) of the 70s was a long series of bungled own-goals destroying rather than building sympathy.
One need only look to say South African example of better managed use of violence.
As the 80s. The recent lashing out by Hamas is equally incompetent lashing out, it is not difficult at all to conceive of a Hamas operation that eschewed random violence, that purely taretted Israeli military and possibly police. Such a demarche might have had a chance of gaining Hamas some grounds with other parties, outside of their core ideological base. But no, they engaged in DAESH style savagery. Not effective, an own goal, wasting their own lives and effort because they are politically incompetent autistics.
Drum seems to have a common Israel slanged understanding of the region which, for example, considers periods where the Palestinians live under occupation, but do not kill a lot of Israelis as peace, and anything that disturbs that as war.
The situation with Egypt is a bit more complicated than Drum suggests. Israel has been occupying Gaza since 1967. In 2005 it changed the nature of that occupation so that instead of having settlements (rightly illegal under international law) and the on the ground forces needed to preserve such settlements, it switched to controlling Gaza through control of the borders. For this change it did not negotiate with the PA, the representatives of the Palestinians in Gaza at the time, but it did negotiate, or dictate terms, to Egypt. Limited goods would be allowed into Gaza through the Egypt crossing with Israel determining what can get through.
This is the situation that Drum calls "the full cooperation" but, of course agreeing to go along with Israeli policy on the threat of reoccupation of Gaza isn't really full cooperation. And Egypt turned a blind eye to extensive tunnels that supplied some goods to Gaza, and occasionally allowed the crossing to be open for short periods until Israel threatened to close it by force. This situation includes a period where the Muslim Brotherhood ruled Egypt so it is hardly plausible that Egypt's actions were driven by hatred of Hamas' ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Since Sisi overthrow the democratically elected government led by the Muslim Brotherhood Egypt has been a more eager participant in the blockade sometimes going further than Israel insisted. That is clearly driven by Sisi's hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood, and worries about their links with Hamas.
Sometimes above Drum seems to just be talking about not allowing Gazans to move out, which is to say to become refugees. That may be more of a constant, but it is more of a matter of not helping Israel with changing the demographics in the region. In this regard it is likely that most Palestinians would agree with the Egyptian view.