On Egypt's Gaza policy
Issandr El AmraniAfter the recent cabinet change, Egypt now has a Prime Minister and a Minister of Foreign Affairs who argue against Egypt's role in the Gaza blockade. Nabil al-Arabi, the new FM, in particular is on record has criticizing that policy on the grounds of international humanitarian law. Will we see a change in the policy anytime soon?
In some sense, it already has changed. Palestinian officials from Hamas have been allowed to travel from Rafah. The border crossing has also been re-opened after a month-long shutdown following January 25, although it is still only taking 300 people a day. But fundamentally, the official position is the same for now. It's based on a legal reality that the siege of Gaza is Israel's responsibility, since it is the occupying power, as well as more convoluted legalism that the border cannot fully be reopened until Gaza is part of an independent Palestinian state. The real reasons for Egypt's participation in the blockade were a mixture of anti-Hamas sentiment, legitimate concern that Egypt could be held responsible for Hamas' actions by Israel, American and Israeli pressure on Cairo, and a fear that the Israelis were maneuvering to dump the Gaza problem onto Egypt's lap.
It's true that Israel is chiefly responsible for Gaza, which is still legally considered occupied territory despite the 2005 withdrawal, since it controls the borders and makes repeated incursions. Gaza cannot be considered separately from the rest of Palestinian territory. But it's also true that Egypt has a moral responsibility to address the humanitarian situation in Gaza, as well as encourage the international community to pressure Israel into lifting the siege. There's a reasonable middle-ground: set up a system for orderly passage of people at Rafah, and provide the water and electricity Gazans need. The passage of goods is more problematic, since it would involve a review of customs agreements that the Palestinians have with Israel (perhaps not so much of an issue considering the state of Israel-Palestine relations and the Israelis' unwillingness to make peace) as well as tempt Israel into closing its crossings to Gaza on the ground that Gaza can simply trade through Egypt. There are no easy solutions here, and perhaps the answer lays more in a dramatic escalation in Egypt-Israel relations over this issue (which I'm not sure would necessarily work to improve the conditions for Gazans.)
But perhaps a first start is to make an announcement that would make it clear that Egypt finds the current Gaza set up unacceptable, breaks with the ridiculous Quartet positions, and calls for the abandonment of the international community's current approach to Israel-Palestine. It might not achieve much, but at least it would send a clear message that Cairo won't back business as usual with the Israelis.
Reader Comments (23)
Dear Arabist,
Thanks for shedding more light on the complex relation of Gaza to Egypt viz-a-viz Israel's responsibilities as an occupying power.
However, the 2005 US-brokered Agreement on Movement stipulates that the Rafah border crossing (for passengers) will be operational only with: 1) the presence of PA security services 2) and the presence of EU international monitors.
Previous efforts to reinstate the PA security at Rafah failed owing to Hamas's opposition. The EU on the other hand will not send its monitors to man the crossing under the supervision of Hamas's security.
I still think that Hamas must be flexible about the point of allowing the PA security to man the Rafah border crossing. Hamas also had had several opportunities where it could've ended the whole blockade if it cooperated with the PA, for example after the Gaza flotilla incident.
Therefore, all Hamas seems to have done is to act with superiority, and with a lack of interest in resolving the problem unless its conditions are met. At the same time, this seems to put Hamas in a comfortable zone: it can always cry victim of the blockade, while lambasting Egypt, Israel and the PA.
Therefore, I don't think the new Egyptian government will offer anything new and different from its previous statements: the Rafah border crossing will be reopened once the PA security services are back there.
Thanks,
I'm not familiar with the detail of the 2005 agreement, but if EU and PA observers can't operate on Gaza's side of the crossing, why can't they be facilitated on Egypt's side?
Because the PA doesn't want to have two layers of Palestinian security - its own and that of Hamas - at the Rafah border. The 2005 agreement is also expired at the moment, so perhaps a new framework may be discussed as Issandr suggested.
Israel never implemented its requirements under the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, which includes extensive provisions for safe passage between Gaza and the WB, etc. So I'm not sure why anyone else feels any obligation to it? On this as so many other issues inc settlements, the Quartet has merely been acting to protect and shore up Israel's intransgent position and protect it from consequences. Egypt should absolutely dissociate itself from the Quartet's pernicious positions.
Then, Helena, the only option for Israel will be to re-occupy the Philadelphi route. Of course I wouldn't like to be subject to Israel's Shabak interrogation on my way back to Gaza, but at least, then, a spade will be called a spade. Also, then, Israel's occupying power status over Gaza will be unqeustionable.
For Israel to occupy the Philadelphi corridor without reoccupying the whole of Gaza would be militarily suicidal: its soldiers would be hopelessly exposed.
A way for Egypt to break the siege without being ensnared in customs agreements would be to lease to Gaza port facilities at El-Arish, and an airport at one of the airbases in east Sinai each connected by a transport corridor to Rafah. The Gaza government would be responsible for its own customs and immigration controls. El Baradei suggested something like this before the revolution. The Israelis would object, but short of either reoccupying Gaza or starting a war with Egypt it's hard to see what they could do.
Gahgeer, yes the 2005 agreement is invoked by the Egyptians to justify their policy. It is also why Palestinian reconciliation has been a pre-requisite for reopening the border, even as the Egyptians made sure it didn't happen (not that the Palestinians needed much help) and the Americans vetoed it. I think we're still in a situation right now where the "atmospherics" are most important. Israel and the Palestinians are waiting to see which way the wind is blowing in Cairo. To my knowledge contact between Egyptian intelligence and the Pals and Israelis are on hold, and domestic issues are more important.
The big question would be — how would Egypt react is there's a Cast Lead 2?
Didn't Israel capture Gaza from Egypt, which was the previous occupying power? Why doesn't Egypt just insist on taking Gaza back and then give it to the Palestinians?
For that matter, why didn't Egypt give Gaza to the Palestinians when Egypt was the occupier? Is there some piece of history that I am missing?
It seems like everyone with the power to do something has their own good reason for doing nothing. Power to the people, then.
Nice blog article thanks for sharing here.
Very curious how "the siege of Gaza is Israel's responsibility, since it is the occupying power" when we all know that the only Israeli in Gaza is a prisoner of Hamas.
Must concur with dongetit and Aaron - Israel has asked Egypt to take back Gaza and Egypt refuses. Israel has asked Jordan to take the West Bank, and Jordan refuses. The blockade exists in its current form because Israel withdrawing from Gaza didn't fit the Hamas narrative.
As much as I'd like to see the Palestinians with their own nation state it must be said their worst enemy has been and remains the neighboring Arab countries. Perhaps the fall of dictators will reverse that.
Procurante, Only Israel said its occupation of Gaza has ended after its withdrawal in 2005. The rest of the world still considers Israel as the occupying power. Check this if you found it tooooo difficult to consult Google on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories
Gahgeer -- make an appeal to logic. Explain to me how, if Gaza has a border with Egypt, and a border with Israel, and there is only one Israeli in Gaza, and he is a prisoner of Hamas, how Israel is an occupying power?
The reality is, as this post, blithely obscures, is that Egypt could open its border with Gaza at any time. It chooses not to because its better to pretend that Israel is still an occupying power, and because it doesn't want to deal with Hamas either.
Gaza is not separate from the west bank. The whole of palestine has to be unoccupied for any of it to be considered legally no longer under occupation. It's just international law.
Issandr -- respectfully, can you explain how Gaza and the West Bank are logically similar, given that they were conquered from different countries (Egypt and Jordan, respectively)? By your logic, Palestine must include the Golan Heights also, since they were all captured contemporaneously -- so that even if the West Bank and Gaza were fully under Palestinian control, they still would be occupied because of the Golan Heights.
The above, of course, ignores the fact that the international law you cite is a distinction without a difference. The reality is, as you know, that Israel occupies Gaza as it does England -- that is, not at all.
Aaaron, so if Israel is not the occupying power on Gaza, which you hallucinate, why can't international flotillas not land on the shores of Gaza. Instaead people who tried this were shot by IDF murderers. Very unusual for a country which is not occupied.
Giordani -- way to keep it classy. We can have a debate on the merits of the boarding of the ships, if you're interested, but since its a digression, suffice it to say that video evidence shows that the IDF responded to force with force, and it must be noted that the other boardings were accomplished peacefully. As you know, Israel offered safe passage for all humanitarian supplies through Ashdod, an offer which was declined. At minimum, blame for the injuries suffered by both sides is shared by both sides.
To answer your question, when the United States blockaded the coast of Cuba to prevent the import of nuclear missiles, it certainly did not occupy Cuba. Similarly, Hamas is an entity that has called for the destruction of Israel, and actively wages war against it. I don't think anyone seriously controverts these facts. Accordingly, Israel blockades the coast, in an attempt to prevent the influx of weaponry to Hamas.
Note that I do not contend that Israel has no responsibility towards Gaza and the Palestinians -- enforcing a blockade to prevent the influx of weapons is certainly proper, while denying non-military supplies is certainly not proper. However, it takes an extreme stretch of the imagination to consider Gaza "occupied".
Issandr, I've also heard the "Palestine is a unity" argument, but it seems that nobody ever applies the same reasoning to any other context. For instance, I've never heard anyone speak of "occupied Novosibirsk" during WW2, nor have I ever heard anyone argue that all Azerbaijan is occupied territory as long as an Armenian soldier remains in Nagorno-Karabakh.
More recently, there was an ICJ decision regarding parts of Congo during its civil war, which held that the law of occupation applied to certain eastern provinces where the Ugandan army had boots on the ground, but not to the city of Kisangani where it only controlled access.
So I think the precedent is clear that occupation isn't an all-or-nothing affair, and that part of a country can be occupied and part not.
In terms of Gaza, Israel controls access in and out but doesn't have boots on the ground. This situation is usually described as a siege rather than an occupation -- nobody talks about "occupied Leningrad" any more than they do about Novosibirsk -- and comes under different articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention (17 and 23 rather than 47 through 78). Personally, I think that the international law of war is far too lenient with respect to sieges, but I don't believe that the current state of the law allows them to be treated as anything else.
Of course, all the argument over the legality of the Gaza siege glosses over the fact that, whether or not it's legal, it's wrong. That should really be the starting point.
Boring the audience with this same old hasbara shit is so premature. Nobody wants to argue with people that never get the point.. Take your Brother Jewishood settlers and get the fuck out of EVERY occupied land. Maybe after that someone talks with you.
Hi Issandr, love the blog - donated a couple of times and will continue doing so.
Giordani,
I don't write on here often but I must say that your last comment was a very unhelpful contribution to what was an interesting article. Everyone has their respective views but lets tone down the language - swearing and finger pointing to who is muslim/jewish/'other' is not going to further any debate.
Just to add to the conversation. Karni crossing was effectively closed this week after a long period of gradual closure (in fact, Sufa crossing was open for the first time yesterday since 2008). It seems that Israel is trying to move all goods to Gaza through Kerem Shalom which is a) smaller, and b) provides an opportunity to try to hand off to Egypt being just on the border. Just food for thought.
T.
Thoughtful, It is clear that Israel's attempt to throw Gaza on Egypt is to relieve itself of this burden as opposed to help them gain freedom.
Will Israel end its control of Gaza's sea, air and borders if Egypt decides to give Gaza "independence"? I bet it wouldn't.
Israel is the occupying power, and trying to find analogies in other conflicts is not gonna work.
Interesting that one can't have a legal discussion without words like "hasbara" being thrown around. I have no interest in defending Israel's current government, which is a feckless, nihilistic misalliance of fascists and religious fanatics that seems intent on dragging both Israel and its neighbors into the abyss. I am, however, a lawyer, and believe that international law should be discussed in terms of what it actually is rather than being used as a cudgel against whatever you might not like. Unless the distinction between occupation and siege is made clear, for instance, the need to reform the humanitarian law of sieges can't really be understood. If that's hasbara, so be it.