http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/930/op1.htm

15 - 21 January 2009
Issue No. 930alam
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875

The Egyptian paradox in Gaza
Egypt is under fire, and Gaza has become a nightmare, but such problems and 
more have been faced before successfully, writes Abdel-Moneim Said* 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The nightmare of politics is when political leaders have to deal with deeply 
contradictory goals. And when these contradictory goals characterise an 
environment of armed conflict, "war" for short, the nightmare is at its worst. 
Nothing represents this nightmare better for Egypt than the Israeli war in 
Gaza, where contradictory objectives describe both external and internal 
policy. 

Even after excluding ancient historic, geographic and demographic ties, Gaza is 
strategically linked to Egypt's national security. For better or for worse, 
Gaza was under Egyptian administration between 1948 and 1967. Never was it 
contemplated in Cairo to annex the Strip. When the Egyptian-Israeli peace was 
signed, Gaza remained part of the Palestinian occupied territories, with Rafah 
as the crossing point between Egypt and Gaza. 

Between 1982 and 1994, when the Oslo Accords were signed, not only was the 
Rafah crossing in use, but also underneath it tunnels were dug, and through 
them were smuggled drugs, people and arms associated with organised crime and 
revolutionary sentiment. Israel looked the other way until the second Intifada, 
when about 30 tunnels became very active in the smuggling of arms. The 
destruction of some 1,600 houses along the Egyptian-Gazan border did not solve 
the problem for Israel. In fact, the problem was compounded after Israel's 
withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the election of Hamas in 2006 and its takeover of 
Gaza in June 2007.

Egypt has historic ties with Gaza that it cannot ignore. For better or for 
worse, if Egypt is historically involved in the Arab-Israel conflict by 
supporting the Palestinian cause, this is particularly so for Gaza. The 
geographic link generates risks and challenges for Egyptian security, the 
safety of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty, the economic prosperity of Sinai 
and, of no less importance, the relationship between Hamas and the Muslim 
Brotherhood in Egypt. 

Three additional security risks from Gaza were added in the last few years. The 
first involved smuggling of arms into Sinai and contributing to the training of 
terrorists who carried out deadly operations in Taba, Sharm El-Sheikh and Dahab 
on the Gulf of Aqaba coast. The second was the demographic invasion of Sinai by 
three quarters of a million Palestinians in January 2008. This alerted 
Egyptians to the possibility of a Palestinian takeover of Sinai, whether under 
pressure from Israel or by Hamas planning to create strategic depth for its 
very small territory. The third, a much more strategic security risk, involves 
Hamas becoming part of a much larger coalition of radicals that are targeting 
Egypt for having changed its posture to one of peace and moderation.

This last risk is one of the main features of the present crisis in Gaza. Egypt 
has been the target of political attacks that even preceded the Hamas decision 
to end the truce with Israel. These have taken the form of media campaigns by 
Iranian, Lebanese, Syrian and pro-Hamas Palestinian sources. Ironically, 
Qatar's famed Al-Jazeera TV channels have led the way in discrediting the 
Egyptian position regarding management of the Rafah crossing. The media attacks 
were followed by demonstrations at Egyptian embassies in Tehran and a variety 
of Arab capitals. 

All this took on an even more critical aspect for Egypt when Israel moved 
militarily into the Gaza Strip. The visit of Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi 
Livni to Cairo hours before the attack gave the political offensive additional 
ammunition, as Egypt appeared to be coordinating its position with Israel.

For Cairo this has become a nightmare. On the one hand, Egypt's historic and 
geostrategic position creates linkages that Egypt and the Egyptians cannot 
forget or ignore. Domestic support for these linkages is also not easy to 
ignore, particularly in view of Egypt's past conflicts with Israel and the 
latter's apparent military superiority. The human suffering in Gaza, amplified 
on our TV screens, has frayed nerves in Cairo. 

On the other hand, the problems that Egypt faces are Hamas-made, with the 
purpose of either re-entangling Egypt once more in the Palestinian conflict, or 
-- reflecting thinking in radical centres in Tehran, Beirut and Gaza -- to 
change the Egyptian regime. In reality, neither objective is attainable. 

Fortunately for Egypt, the situation in Gaza -- where radicalism, religious or 
nationalist, is mixed with the Palestinian question -- is not entirely new. 
Cairo was in the same situation when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US invaded Iraq 
and Hizbullah went to war with Israel. Each time it was the weight of the 
Egyptian state that carried the day: to work for a ceasefire, create a new 
balance that gives all parties breathing space, and finally to delineate a 
comprehensive solution for the Arab-Israel conflict that dissociates it from 
diverse forms of radicalism. 

The scenario will be no different for Egypt this time. Cairo has the political 
capacity domestically and externally to sustain an effort to go to the root of 
the problem. It remains to be seen whether other parties in the region, 
particularly the Israelis and Palestinians, have the same capacity.

* The writer is director of Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic 
Studies. This piece was previously published on www.bitterlemons- 
international.org . 




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply via email to