There have been many books that have influenced my understanding of Israel/Palestine, and one that proved to be an important milestone was Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, by Noam Chomsky. I remember when I was young, seeing the book in the house, but it wasn't until many years later that I began to read it for myself, and its contents shocked me, leading me to many other books, experiences and changes in my outlook and understanding.
I mention it now, because it seems that the paradigm has been changed since the late 70's-early 80's. What was once a triangle has now become more of a rectangle, with Egypt taking a more and more prominent role in the Palestinian struggle; or, I should say, in the suppression of said struggle...
The last few weeks have seen a remarkable amount of news and developments regarding Palestine; the Gaza Freedom March, the 1 year anniversary of the Cast Lead assault on Gaza, which took over 1,400 lives, and many other related stories. There has been a crackdown on non-violent Palestinian activists, and it seems that today the Viva Palestina convoy has been disrupted by violence at the Gaza-Egypt border;
At least one Egyptian border guard has been killed and 35 Palestinians wounded along the Gaza border during fierce clashes with Egyptian security forces. A border protest on Wednesday turned violent over frustration that the aid convoy, Viva Palestina, had been delayed. Egyptian forces opened fire to disperse stone-throwing protesters who had gathered on the Gaza side of the Rafah border crossing, witnesses and medics said. But Egyptian officials said the 21-year-old soldier was shot by gunfire from the Palestinian side. Al Jazeera's Ayman Mohyeldin, reporting from Gaza, confirmed that people on both sides of the border opened fire during the clash.
As there is much to discuss, I'd like to focus on the issue I began with, that is Egypt's role in the Israel-Palestine conflict. But before I get started, I want to make it clear that despite what criticisms I will bring up or point out, I have the utmost respect for all the participants in the Gaza Freedom March. Our own Kossacks soysauce and Robert Naiman, and the hundreds of others that put themselves on the line, along with so many organizations and activists involved in the struggle deserve our respect and support; I truly thank you all.
The Gaza Freedom March was organized following the initial success of the Free Gaza Movement, which took a number of ships into Gaza from Cyprus; these boats were the first to dock in Gaza in over 40 years, and for awhile, they broke the siege of Gaza, ending its cruel isolation from the world. One of the main strengths of this approach was that they needed no permission from any surrounding countries; if one is entering Gaza by sea, and not going through Israel, why is it Israel's business to intervene? If I take a boat from Spain to Italy, should France have a right to intervene?
The march, however, approached Gaza via Egypt, thus inviting a host of problems and issues to work out; will Egypt let us in? If they do, do we accept? How many will be allowed in? In a sense, it seems there were two competing goals of the march; to raise awareness of the siege, and/or to actually break/end the siege.
On the one hand, I had a very strong feeling from the beginning that the march would not be successful in breaking the siege; even the boats, which did break it for some time, were blocked from entry by the beginning of Cast Lead. And since they were arriving on land, through the heavily fortified border of Egypt, there was not going to be any realistic way of actually changing that reality with one march. This article by Paul Larudee is a very accurate summary of these issues;
The initial decision to accept Egypt’s offer for 100 marchers to enter Gaza very nearly sent the wrong message: that Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli or other authorities have the right to decide which Palestinian human rights may be honored and to what extent. Compare that with the valiant efforts of Palestinians and their supporters in the villages of Bil’in, Ni’lin, Budrus, Jayyous, Beit Ommar and other locations throughout Palestine, who risk and sometimes give their lives to exercise their rights, in defiance of tear gas, bullets and arrests.
Egypt should not be allowed to derive any legitimacy from its actions. Palestinian solidarity movements must be totally uncompromising in insisting upon Palestinian human rights, including the right for all people to receive whomever they want as visitors, as well as to freely receive and send goods, both within Palestine and internationally. They have the right not to be forced to live a concentration camp existence. The GFM ultimately made the right decision to reject Egypt’s offer.
But, I do feel that the Gaza Freedom March did do a very good job of raising awareness of the siege of Gaza and as Robert Naiman has pointed out, has given a real boost to the BDS movement. And it has also raised the awareness of Egypt's role in maintaining that siege. And herein lies the problem; how do we understand that role?
I think Larudee put it well in his article; we must see Egypt's actions as a part of the overall US-Israeli siege of Gaza, not as some sort of sideshow or inter-Arab dispute;
For the future, however, let us consider what kinds of actions are most likely to yield results. The FGM has been a great expense of time, energy and resources. Even if its goals had been fully met, there would have been no direct challenge to Israeli policies and authorities. At most, the plan challenges Egypt, which is merely the puppet and not the puppeteer, and diverts attention from the real source of the problem.
There are many reasons for the actions that Egypt has taken and is taking in regards to Gaza and the Palestinians; certainly Egypt has ones that are more local and regional in their scope, such as the political connections between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, and others.
But the larger geopolitical realities are there, and avoiding to recognize them is just an act of willful blindness. Since the American brokered deal between Israel and Egpyt, Egypt has been in the US-Israeli camp, the deal sweetened with the yearly aid and military spending that the US enables for Egypt. This is much the same as Jordan, which has always been aligned to some degree with an imperial sponsor, first the British, and later the US, a relationship that was made formal with the official relations and peace with Israel during the Oslo years. In fact, the only countries in the region that are holding out on US hegemony are Syria, and Iran (and before 2003, Iraq). Funny those are the ones we always hear nasty things about, eh? (of course, there is also the more recent addition of Yemen, but that is another story...)
Once you're on the team, there are expectations and responsibilities; of course, no more resistance, and when Israel attacks (like Lebanon in 82 or Gaza in 08-09), countries like Egypt, are told just exactly what they should do, or should not do. In 82, it was just that, do nothing and allow Israel a calm southern front while they bomb Israel. In 08-09, and today, Egypt's role as enforcer has gotten even more pronounced. It now shares the burden of maintaining the siege of Gaza by closing its border, and even using drastic police state methods to shut down non-violent marchs to Gaza. This is not hard for Egypt to do, as it has violently suppressed dissent and protest from its citizens, but I do hope that the current actions get more attention (which is likely, as the targets are internationals, and not Egyptians, a sad yest true & racist reality).
Let's look at a recent article by Uri Avnery on the issue as well;
There are several explanations. Cynics point out that the Egyptian government receives a huge American subsidy every year – almost two billion dollars – by courtesy of Israel. It started as a reward for the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. The pro-Israel lobby in the US Congress can stop it any time.
Mubarak is angry with Hamas, which refuses to dance to his tune. Like his predecessors, he demands that the Palestinians obey his orders. President Abd-al-Nasser was angry with the PLO (an organization created by him to ensure Egyptian control of the Palestinians, but which escaped him when Yasser Arafat took over). President Anwar Sadat was angry with the PLO for rejecting the Camp David agreement, which promised Palestinians only "autonomy". How dare the Palestinians, a small, oppressed people, refuse the "advice" of Big Brother?
All these explanations make sense, yet the Egyptian government’s attitude is still astonishing. The Egyptian blockade of Gaza destroys the lives of 1.5 million human beings, men and women, old people and children, most of who are not Hamas activists. It is done publicly, before the eyes of hundreds of millions of Arabs, a billion and a quarter Muslims. In Egypt itself, too, millions of people are ashamed of the participation of their country in the starving of fellow Arabs.
It is a very dangerous policy. Why does Mubarak follow it?
The real answer is, probably, that he has no choice.
While I disagree with some of his views (I do not see myself as a 'cynic'), it is true that Egypt is facing some serious internal problems, which will only exacerbate the political and humanitarian situation there;
EGYPT: Disaster looms for Delta region
Egypt’s Delta region faces a natural disaster of massive proportions by 2020 unless urgent action is taken to better manage scarce fresh water resources and come up with solutions to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels, according to government officials.
The country is facing the dual threat of water needs surpassing resources by 2017, and rising sea levels in the decades ahead inundating much of the fertile Delta region, home to 60 percent of Egypt’s 78 million people, it added.
"Many of the towns and urban areas in the north of the Delta will suffer from the rise in the level of the Mediterranean with effect from 2020, and about 15 percent of Delta land is [currently] under threat from the rising sea level and the seepage [of salt water] into ground water," Environment Minister George Maged told a parliamentary committee earlier this year.
(The impact of a sea level rise on the Nile Delta according to UNEP/GRID estimations. See larger version)
I'll end with this video clip and some commentary on it; It is with English subtitles translation from Hebrew, and is a segment from Israel, Channel 23, "Erev Hadash" (aka "New Evening Show"). The Journalist Dan Margalit argues with the member of Israeli parliament, Jamal Zahalka fron the Arab Party about the Gaza siege. Zahalka called the Defense Minister Ehud Barak "a child killer;" and then the fun begins...
I include it because the discussion begins with very question of Egypt and its role on the US-Israeli siege of Gaza (and Palestine as a whole for that matter). But of course, it goes on from there, right to the very heart of the conflict, the dispossession of Palestinians in the Nakba of 1948;
Israeli television confrontation is ‘a metaphor of the moral crisis in which Zionism is found today’
There have been several responses to the episode in the Israeli press. Below is an illuminating article by Israeli professor Yehuda Shenhav, which appears on the Hebrew version of YNET. Interestingly enough, there is a translated article on YNET’s English site attacking Zahalka called "History lesson for Arab MKs." Luckily, a Mondoweiss reader translated the Shenhav article. From YNET:
This drama reveals the sting of the conflict and which demonstrates how the gap between liberalism and racism is hair thin. At the moment of truth, the liberal Israeli becomes domineering and racist. This is a glaring product of the nationalistic model called a "Jewish and Democratic state" and one that keeps the skeleton of 1948 hidden in closet.
Especially, since for the majority of Palestinians inside and outside the Green Line, the war of 1948 is not over yet. The "Jewish Democratic" model is based on the denial of history. The meeting between MK Zahalka and Margalit is a metaphor of the moral crisis in which Zionism is found today. Zahalka dared in his "impudence" to point out the skeleton in the closet, the same one that Margalit is trying to hide. As in totalitarian regimes, Margalit wants to aid the regime in hiding the secret and employs symbolic violence. Margalit’s position is dangerous to the future of the Jews because it seeks to ensure the rights and security through the perpetual use of tanks, instead of opening the conflict up [and getting to the bottom of it].
Unfortunately, this is also Israel’s strategy to ending the conflict. It is based on the illusion that the conflict started in 1967. Just like Ehud Barak already learned in Camp David, he came to solve the ’67 question, but Arafat came to solve the question of ’48. Therefore, the return of Jews to [acknowledging and discussing] 1948 is inevitable.