By Request: An Egyptian Gaza?
Greg Sanders asks:
One thing I’m wondering about Gaza. If at some point in the future, Egypt goes more democratic and the Muslim Brotherhood gains a role in the government, does a substantially better relationship between Palestinians in Gaza and Egypt become possible?
As you’ve shown via links, the West Bank part of a three state solution is totally unworkable. However, the problems with perhaps getting some sort of protectorate status for Gaza seem to largely center around Mubarak (or any likely dictatorial successor).
A “three-state solution” would entail Gaza being incorporated into Egypt, Israel grabbing and annexing the parts of the West Bank it wants, and Jordan absorbing a rump West Bank and this seems to be the successor fantasy to the “Greater Israel” dreams of yore. With regard to the question, obviously this would depend on the state of the overall Israel-Palestine issue.
I can’t speak from a great wealth of personal experience, but I do think it’s a mistake to look at the Middle East as just a big ol’ sea of generic Arabs who can be shunted from one country to another. Egyptians are aware of Egypt’s distinctly Egyptian history and heritage and Palestinians have a feeling of common nationhood. That said, if you assume a future Palestinian state, it’s natural that Gaza will in some ways be more connected with Egypt (which it’s next to) than to the rest of Palestine. But think of Alaska. Notwithstanding the fact that Alaska shares a border with Canada along with a language and broadly speaking a “culture,” Alaskans are still Americans. And, indeed, as we’ve seen from Sarah Palin they’re capable of manifesting an ugly brand of American nationalism that’s totally incompatible with being Canadian.
An interesting related issue that can only be speculated about is to what degree would we see much closer political integration between Arab states if he had more political democracy. There are efforts, of course, to coordinate Arab policy through fora such as the Arab League. But in practice it’s extremely difficult for authoritarian states to cooperate in a deep way. Constituted as democracies, however, it would be much more plausible to imagine the Arab League turning into something more like an Arab version of an EU-style superstate.
60 Responses to “By Request: An Egyptian Gaza?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 12th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“I do think it’s a mistake to look at the Middle East as just a big ol’ sea of generic Arabs who can be shunted from one country to another”
Oh, you think?
Why don’t we just choose the leadership we’d like for Gaza to have(Fatah) and then give them to Egypt? Gazans will go for it, because you know, they’re all Aaaa-rabs.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Wouldn’t this depend a great deal on what flavor of Muslim Brotherhood manages to get into the government? Radical vs. Mainstream? Not that there’s a snowball’s chance of Mubarak giving up the slightest bit of control anytime soon.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
It’s a little weird for Yglesias to use the Alaska analogy here, one post away from a post disavowing analogies.
Seeing as how Gaza was a part of Egypt as recently as 1967, I don’t think is quite the same things as grouping any arbitrary groups of Arabs together.
It’s more an issue of the fact that Israel did such a miserable job of running Gaza for 30 years that no one wants to inherit such a trouble-ridden shitpile.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I’m sure that some people will cite the short history of the UAR to say that Arabs themselves thought they could be one happy nation-state family, but given that that pan-Arab moment lasted three years, and is probably best seen as a brief us-against-them moment in the aftermath of Suez.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Re MHD
Actually, Begin suggested to Sadat during the Camp David negotiations in 1979 that Egypt regain the Gaza Strip. Sadats’ response was not a chance. Actually, Egypt did a piss poor job of governing it prior to 1967. The unfortunate fact is that nobody wants the Gaza Strip or anything to do with its inhabitants.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
The point about Sadat ignores the motivation. To accept the population of Gaza into Egypt at that time would have been to acceot the fact that people who had been driven from their homes as refugees would never return home. In one sense it would have given the Israelisa get out of jail free card so obviously the Egyptians refused. It would havebeen much better had they agreed.
It is not a practical solution now, particularly given the fragile political situation in Egypt.
In case nobody’s noticed the British have a long and miserable history of arbitrarily lumping populations together (or separating them) – successful examples of this kind of “statecraft” are few and far between. Possibly the only onethat was really thought out was the aprtition of India and Pakistan. In that instance we understood the local politics and population intimately and still we fucked it up royally.
This isn’t a solution, the fact that half-wits like John Bolton think that it is only illustrates their utter bancruptcy. It simply isn’t credible, even in the fantasy-fascist new world order the American media have created.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Thanks for the answer! Even given Egyptian territorial control, I wouldn’t be that surprised if the past forty years occupation went a long way towards reinforcing a separate sense of national identity.
So by that view a more democratic Egypt might lead to a government that would look to do more to improve the quality of life of Palestinians in Gaza and likely going against Israeli government preferences for isolation by doing so. But it wouldn’t help with the limbo of Gaza’s existence as an isolated and not particularly viable state.
If you get the two-state solution then Gaza+the West Bank can benefit from tourism, but as far as I know Gaza on its own doesn’t have much of a basis for a successful economy.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
MHD, You may want to study the history of colonialism in Africa before you make a fool of yourself…
January 12th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
I haven’t been to Gaza but I have been to some other ME cities and I can tell you from the pictures that Gaza is not, relatively, a shithole. To say that Israel did a miserable job managing Gaza is not true in regard to the infrastucture. Last year there was news about a sewage lagoon that was part of a sewage plant collapsing and killing some people. I thought “Sewage plant? What a concept for the ME!”
January 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Matt, I think it is important that you clarify your Alaska comment is an EXAMPLE, not an analogy lest folks start pointing out that Alaska is, ya know, much colder than Gaza, that Canada is not a dictatorship, and that Muslims are a minority in Alaska.
These things are so easily confused.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
One gaping hole in the “give them to Egypt” plan is that Palestinian nationalists may well continue bombarding Israel.
In that case, Israel wouldn’t be in the position of assualting Gaza – they’d be assualting Egypt. World War III.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Mr. Yglesias,
Have you ever heard of the term “Pan-Arabism”? Please look the phrase up, and what Nasser, Aflaq, and others meant by it. There is precedent for the idea that Arabs are a single cultural unit, and a single nation, and that in a sense country borders don’t matter. Nasser at one point tried to unite Egypt with Syria, Iraq, and Yemen on the basis of that idea.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
If a war between Israel and Egypt qualifies as a “world war” then I think we must be on at least World War VI by now…
January 12th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
And as reliable as diarrhea after drinking swampwater, Hector shows up.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
There is precedent for the idea that Arabs are a single cultural unit, and a single nation, and that in a sense country borders don’t matter. Nasser at one point tried to unite Egypt with Syria, Iraq, and Yemen on the basis of that idea.
Yeah, the concept exists, but the United Arab Republic was not exactly a resounding success. The unions with Iraq and Yemen never came to fruition, and the union between Egypt and Syria lasted only three years. Not to say it couldn’t ever work, but it’s been tried and failed once, and to succeed you’ve have to somehow get over the feeling that one part (Egypt, in the 1958-1961 incarnation) wasn’t dominating the rest, and that the cultural differences and political aspirations of the participants could successfully be subsumed beneath pan-Arabism.
January 12th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Plus you’d have various non-participating Arab kings and emirs feeling threatened by its existence and plying their influence accordingly.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
While you are correct that combining Gaza with Egypt is problematic, I am unaware of any country since about 1870 that has been divided into two segments unconnected by sea and remained viable.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
#17:
Czechoslovakia?
The entire USSR?
January 12th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I am unaware of any country since about 1870 that has been divided into two segments unconnected by sea and remained viable.
Kaliningrad has been separate from the rest of Russia since the breakup of the USSR. Technically you could get from one to the other via the sea, but I don’t think it happens very often.
There are a lot of tiny exclaves out there around the world that persist. By this site’s terminology, though, Kaliningrad is a fragment, not a complete exclave:
http://geosite.jankrogh.com/exclaves.htm
January 12th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Oh wait, you meant, “… and remain a single country”. How about West Germany?
January 12th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
One reason the Pan-Arab movement didn’t last long was bc the Western Power (surprisingly not the U.S.) actively worked against it. It should also be noted some of the first supporters of the Pan Arab movement were Jewish ppl from that region.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
The trouble with Pan-Arabism is that the countries that tried to make a go of it were never good fits.
Syria and Iraq might have made a go of it, and might have actually ended up being a viable and potent economic and political unit. But they were largely unstarters.
Syria and Egypt had no political or economic common ground, no particular advantages or synergies. So it failed. Same with Yemen.
Libya and Egypt shared a common border, but were such a colossal mismatch that it just died at birth.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
The problem with the three-state solution is it’s not an honest transfer of territory or populations. In both Gaza and the West Bank the idea is to herd absurd and completely unsustainable concentrations of refugees into either bantustans or ghettos and then try to pass of the result as some kind of equitable treaty-line solution. Let Egypt resume control of Gaza, plus a million refugees who’s families used to live in Greater Israel.
Neither Jordan nor Egypt has any real interest in the Palestinians and never have had. Israel’s problem is the Palestinians. Their problem is Israel, in no small part because Israel has flooded them with unwelcome Palestinian refugees in the past and seems keen on doing so again.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Okay, now I’ve been assaulted by two really, really stupid ideas in one day. My death is certainly imminent. The first is this Three State idea. That it was proposed by Bill Kristol should say it all, but apparently not. Neither Jordan nor Egypt wants a radical Islamist group within their realm. They are trying hard to avoid that. And they’ll accept it with glee? You’re higher than I am, for sure. Egypt’s cooperation with Israel in screwing Hamas should make that clear, but if that’s not clear enough, just look at the rest of the Arab world. They will do absolutely nothing for Hamas.
But the craziest idea I’ve seen comes from a Lebanese Imam. He thinks Turkey, Egypt, and Iran should get together to balance Israel. So let’s just ignore the fact that those three countries hate each other and assume that maybe they could get together. Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel, and Turkey does joint military operations with Israel. Aside from that, both Turkey and Egypt are Sunni, and have basically secular governments. Turkey is extreme secular, and Egypt is just moderately secular. Iran is Shia, and pretty damn radical in being so. So he’s saying that Turkey and Egypt could find some common ground with Iran and invade their allies? Wow. Those Imams must have better drugs than I have. I can’t even imagine how many hits it would take me to trip that hard. I know I’m crazy, but how crazy do I have to be to beat Bill Kristol? I guess that’s why they call it Kristol Meth. And shit, Greg Sanders took it too. Somebody call the hospital, he’s in trouble.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Actually, Turkey and Iran are now getting along quite famously. This is largely because of American policies in Iraq with the Kurds which are pissing the Turks off big time. And in part its due to the famous American habit of welshing on promises while always being up for a bit of revenge.
Anyway, the bottom line is that the Turks suffered through the 90’s with a Kurdish uprising which killed 40,000 people. The Turks now notice that their Kurdish terrorist group, the PKK has been making its home under American protection in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Turks have been replying to this by launching occasional raids into Iraqi Kurdistan, whilst giving American protests the middle finger.
On the other side of the coin, the Turks find many reasons to get along famously with the Iranians. Mutual Kurdish problems being one. In fact, the Turks and Kurds are getting along so well that the Iranian government has granted hot pursuit rights. Specifically, the Iranian government has given the Turkish government the right to have its troops enter Iranian territory on combat or search and destroy missions. You can’t get much closer than that.
Also, there’s all that lovely Iranian oil, and the prospect of pipelines into Central Asia. Yep, Turkey and Iran are singing sweet, sweet songs. Think of it as similar to the German/French partnership that runs Europe.
Luckily, neither country really gives much of a crap about Israel.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:14 am
“Actually, Turkey and Iran are now getting along quite famously.”
Nothing like a common enemy to bring people together, is there?. And some oil and gas deals mixed in. But let’s be honest, Turkey still hates Iran and will trade with them only because they need to. Turkey will never cross Israel because that would mean losing their American warplanes and the training they get in Colorado Springs. Turkey will never really cooperate with Iran unless we do too. Well, except for killing Kurds, of course. But with the Turks, killing Kurds is not hatred, it’s just water. But water is the most important commodity in the region, and Turkey controls most of it. And they will never give that up. And certainly not to the Kudrs.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Re: 25 and 26
If these countries were all democracies, Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Turkey would be one alliance, and all the other Arab countries another.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:51 am
You do realize that Turkey has more trade with Iran than it does with Israel? There’s no significant Turkish/Israel trade, no real economic ties or links, no geopolitical common interests, no nothing. The truth is that Turkey really doesn’t care about Israel.
It doesn’t care about Iran all that much, but it does have common economic, energy, military and security concerns with Iran.
However, the two countries are joint members of a central asian Economic Cooperation Organization.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Re: 25 and 26
If these countries were all democracies, Israel, Iran, Lebanon and Turkey would be one alliance, and all the other Arab countries another.
If only Israel would stop bombing Lebanon!
January 13th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Turkey is NATO, and a far more useful ally in the region than Israel. I don’t think they’re going to start bombing the place, but they do have a bit of leeway regarding the warmth of their relationship with Israel.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:42 am
Better idea – To put it crudely, the Palestinians should do to Gaza, especially the coast what the Egyptians did to Sharm el Sheikh and the Israelis did to Eilat – develop it as a resort for tourism – compete with Beirut and use the money for development. It’s a no-brainer.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:04 am
First time reader/commenter. Some well informed folks here in the comments worth reading. You have to ask, what could Israel (or the US) possibly have to offer Egypt to get them to agree to take Gaza off their hands? What on earth would even remotely be palatable? And what would be palatable to the hardline zionists in Israel, who are playing the 100-year game and believe Gaza can be overrrun and settled?
January 13th, 2009 at 7:47 am
Just defend myself a bit against the Meth idea. I accepted the Lynch tear down of Bolton’s proposal. I was just curious whether a democratic Egypt might change things. I doubt Kristol or Bolton would be big on a solution that involved the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt coming to greater power.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:48 am
But the craziest idea I’ve seen comes from a Lebanese Imam. He thinks Turkey, Egypt, and Iran should get together to balance Israel. So let’s just ignore the fact that those three countries hate each other and assume that maybe they could get together.
Ah! Someone with an insight on the last 1200 years of Middle-eastern history: Arab vs Turk vs Egyptian vs Persian was always more important than any other issue until the Europeans butted in with their colonial empires.
Way back in the 12th Century, an Egyptian dynasty was dying out and one of the leading contenders to replace it was . . . the king of the Christian crusader state of Jerusalem. “Better the Christians that the Ghuzz (Turks)” was the feeling among a lot Egyptian.
A Christian religious fanatic deliberately crocked the deal by leading a noisy pirate raid on Mecca. He didn’t have rockets, but Hamas operates on the same principle.
January 13th, 2009 at 8:16 am
“fora”? Please: “forums”.
Pretensions to classical education turn wonkery into wankery.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As you point out, connected by sea, so not relevant to my statement. (Note however that I don’t think Kaliningrad is long-term viable either, but the sea connection helps).
A better example, although there was a land connection (the Germans had use of certain highways and railroad connections between the two areas), and its territorial integrity was guaranteed by the United States and NATO. Neither of which I suspect will apply to a future Palestinian state.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
I am unaware of any country since about 1870 that has been divided into two segments unconnected by sea and remained viable.
I am unaware of any country since about 1870 that has been divided into two segments unconnected by sea, full stop. (Or, indeed, period.) Can you provide some examples?
January 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Israel should be incorporated into Gaza.
White europeans like russians, czechs, poles have no business colonizing the middle east.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
White europeans like russians, czechs, poles have no business colonizing the middle east.
Yep. And Europeans, had no business colonizing the Americas, the Aztecs had no business colonizing Mexico, the Turks had no business colonizing Anatolia, the Arabs had no business colonizing Syria and Judea, and Joshua did a very bad thing to the Canaanites way back when.
Every diplomat every day all over the world is dealing with the consequences of 15,000 years of tribal turf wars. Know the past, but start from the present and work forward.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:44 am
For the three years I’ve been living in Cairo I haven’t met a single Egyptian that wants Gaza to be part of Egypt.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Thanks Dody, that’s a useful bit of information about a more democratic future. Do you find the people you talk to are mostly ambivalent or vehemently against the idea?
January 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am
Midland,
Re: “Better the Christians that the Ghuzz (Turks)” was the feeling among a lot Egyptian.
The Greeks, in their day, said something similar: “Better the turban than the mitre.”
January 13th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Re: I am unaware of any country since about 1870 that has been divided into two segments unconnected by sea, full stop. (Or, indeed, period.)
Ajay,
Azerbaijan, with respect to its landlocked exclave of Nakhichevan. Arguably Armenia with respect to Karabakh, although the status of that territory is disputed. I can’t think of other examples.
January 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Like Dody, I live in Cairo. I’m a non-Arabic speaking expat American. Given those limitations, my impression from talking with Egyptian professionals as well as blue collar types (my housekeeper, drivers from work etc.) is that most people here do not want Gaza to be part of Egypt. They are upset about what is happening but think Hamas picked this fight and now wants Egypt to come solve it for them–and they do not want another war with Israel. My housekeeper thinks when the border security was lifted last year the Palestinians came in and bought everything in the Sinai, driving up prices for poor Egyptians and causing a lot of problems. She and others feel that if Egypt took over Gaza or opened the border they would inherit responsibility for a lot of social problems among the Palestinians and there are enough poor people here in Egypt to care for already. There are certainly some who feel that Egypt should be doing more, but the idea that Egypt should just annex Gaza is not even considered by those I have talked with and dismissed when I brought it up.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
There may not be a “big ol’ sea of generic Arabs,” but Islam posits a big ol’ sea of generic Muslims, aka the Caliphate, a theocratic concept that provided cover for political organization of the region for 1,200+ years, until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I.
There’s been way too little written about this (”caliphate” is little more than a jihadist buzzword to most Westerners), yet it’s at the heart of the political instability of the Middle East.
Aside from Iran/Persia, there are no historically long-established nation states in the region. All the other territories were colonial provinces of one or another empire from ancient times until the mid- to late-20th century — and in all that time the only non-alien rulers ruled under the banner of pan-Islamism.
Matt doesn’t like analogies, but they can be useful for historical perspective and understanding. Politically, the notion of the Caliphate is not unlike medieval “Christendom” organized under the Holy Roman Empire or the early communists’ view of Soviet Russia as the vanguard of a Socialist International.
January 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Matt doesn’t like analogies, but they can be useful for historical perspective and understanding. Politically, the notion of the Caliphate is not unlike medieval “Christendom” organized under the Holy Roman Empire or the early communists’ view of Soviet Russia as the vanguard of a Socialist International.
Hmmm . . . that’ll provide fodder for the wingnuts, all right.
For most of its history, the influence of the caliphate was more like that of the papacy after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Some people thought well of it, some revered it, a lot resented it for its beliefs or its foriegness, and no one considered it a serious political player.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
ST: Thanks as well. That extra detail is useful in understanding what Egyptians would and would not do regarding Gaza. Mind if I quote you when I do my post?
January 13th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
For most of its history, the influence of the caliphate was more like that of the papacy after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Some people thought well of it, some revered it, a lot resented it for its beliefs or its foriegness, and no one considered it a serious political player.
The Ottoman sultan was styled as the caliph, and for 400+ years in that part of the world he was the most serious player around.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Re: But think of Alaska
Most non-contiguous nations fall apart– or become a causus belli. Alaska works as part of the US because we have an obliging and pacific neighbor between Alaska and the rest of the US– and because there is a sea route joining us too, one which we control (Ditto Hawaii in regarsd to the last).
January 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
The Ottoman sultan was styled as the caliph, and for 400+ years in that part of the world he was the most serious player around
Yes, but his power derived from being the Sultan (meaning “general,” more or less) of the Ottoman Turks, and the caliphate was something he picked up as a perk.
Ironically (or intentionally) the Sultans imitated the Roman-Byzantine emperors who held Constantinople before them. They held power by military and dynastic means, then took up the leadership of the state religion to consolidate and justify that power. Note that, as the power of the papacy waned in western Europe, the French kings and other monarchs declared themselves the leaders of their own national churches.
This is one of the various reasons separation of church and state was written into our constitution: if a religion becomes one with the state, it is co-opted by the rulers and used to consolidate their power. The power of the state corrupts state religions absolutely. It has always been so, and always will be so.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Midland,
As opposed to the United States, where religion is a pure and uncorrupted thing??!
I rather think that the state church of, say, Greece or Argentina is rather more truly Christian, and less corrupted, than the leadership of the Episcopal or the Southern Baptist churches in America, neither of which is established. We also seem to have more know-nothing fundamentalists, and more annoying triumphalist missionaries, than the Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran countries with state churches.
The Greek church was led by the Patriarch of Constantinople, not the emperor. That the emperor and the patriarch were normally closely allied and interdependent doesn’t make them identical to each other.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:32 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:28 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Very interesting site, Hope it will always be alive! viagra
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Give please. We need anything politically important rationed out like Pez: small, sweet, and coming out of a funny, plastic head.
I am from Scotland and bad know English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “Search all airlines and travel agents in one place to find the cheapest.”
Thank you very much
. Hazel.