Egypt rejects humanitarian civilian corridor for Gaza civilians

[Marius25]

https://www.reuters.com/world/egypt-discussing-plans-provide-aid-gaza-under-limited-ceasefire-security-sources-2023-10-11/

Not surprising, but pretty horrible of Egypt. Although I'm sure we'll get plenty of responses that Egypt refusing is Israel's fault.

[RockRaven]

1. Corridor to where, safe passage to where? No destination is identified in that article.

If one doesn't identify a point B, fussing over the path from A to B not existing is either pointless or dishonest.

[Marius25]

2. Huh? It literally means opening the Rafah gate between Gaza and Egypt.

[RockRaven]

5. What's the *destination*? Where are they refugees supposed to go and live?

"Egypt" isn't a destination, unless the Egyptian government says so. Even the Israeli spokesperson quoted in the article says as much.

Again, where exactly are the refugees supposedly going to, which the non-opening of the purported corridor is preventing?

If one wants to say Egypt is wrong to not take refugees, they could and should say so. But saying the issue is the pathway being blocked when no takers exist at the end of the pathway just doesn't wash.

[Marius25]

8. Obviously the plan was to have Egypt take in refugees.

They are refusing.

[RockRaven]

11. Well, if and when Israel moves into Gaza, the people there become the moral and legal

responsibility of Israel. That has always been the case, and has always affected Israel's Gaza strategy. Anyone expecting Egypt to jump for joy at the chance to take over the burden of millions of refugees is rather myopic.

The "plan" for Egypt to take refugees is a very bad one before such time as Egypt agrees to it. Have they agreed? No...

Maybe there should have been some planning to account for that, or some persuasion -- in the many decades which have been available for such -- instead of waiting until there was a crisis, and then claiming that they are the bad guy for not accommodating others' demands.

[TomDaisy]

14. I saw yesterday that Israel was bombing the corridor, they can't leave that way

even if they tried.

[Happy Hoosier]

3. Not a surprise really

They don’t want more than a million refugees to be their responsibility. Not to mention they probably don’t want any part of Hamas setting up camp in Egypt.

[Marius25]

4. That's an unfortunate dilemma for Palestinians as well.

It's a touchy subject here, but I recommend people read up on relations in that region to understand why Arab countries won't help Palestinians.

[Happy Hoosier]

9. As I understand it...

There has been reluctance for Arab nations to accept Palestinian refugees because they will become permanent residents and possibly introduce political instability. Add to this the idea that it took pressure off Israel by essentially removing pressure to accommodate Palestinians within Israel (the so-called “right of return”). Countries like Jordan and Egypt which are formally at peace with Israel are probably less concerned about the de facto acknowledgment of Israel’s right to exist (they’ve already done that), and far more concerned about introducing political instability.

[Marius25]

10. Instability is certainly one way to put it.

Look up Black September in Jordan and the Lebanese Civil War. Both were caused by Palestinian militant groups and led to the near destruction of both countries.

So even though it wasn't civilians responsible, Arab countries aren't willing to risk those types of events again.

[Marcuse]

18. Israel/Jordan was the original Two State Solution. What's Jordan's price to take back the West Bank?

[The Magistrate]

23. This Is Not Quite So, Sir

England carved Trans-Jordan out of the Palestine Mandate to provide employment for one son of the Hashemite family which they had backed against the Turks in the Great War, after they were driven from Arabia by Ibn Saud and his Wahhabi soldiery. It was not a question of settling things as Arabs east of the river, Jews west if it.

Leaving aside the Peel Commission, the first 'two state solution' was the UN Partition in 1947. It was, all things considered, a considerably better deal for the Arabs of Palestine than anything on subsequent offer, and it would be hard to argue that their rejection of it was not a calamitous mistake.

[DemocraticPatriot]

19. Why won't they?

You claim to know, so give us your opinion, please...


I am probably as close to a 'neutral' in this whole discussion as you have run into, and I ask sincerely.

I don't have 2000 years to research for the answer...

[The Magistrate]

28. Originally, Sir, This Owed To Circumstances After The Armistice in '49

The position of the Arab League, and the leadership of Arab Palestine, was that Jewish rule over any part of Palestine could not be borne. Israel's victory, sealed by the '49 Armistice, was viewed by all Arab parties as only temporary, and policy was guided by the idea the refugee population would soon be returned in triumph to their land once the Jews were subdued. So assimilation into the populace of a host country seemed neither necessary nor good politics, as it would imply acceptance Jews ruled .
once Arab land.

In the area now referred to as the West Bank, matters were a bit more complicated. Abdullah, the Hashemite ruler of Trans-Jordan despised the Palestinian leader, the Grand Mufti al'Husseini, and was of the opinion his lands ought to include either a port somewhere, or Jerusalem. In '48, Abdullah's forces, British trained and partly British officered, invaded across the river, reaching Jerusalem before the fighting concluded. The Armistice left him in occupation of the West Bank, which held not just its own population, but many refugees from what was now Israeli territory. Abdullah annexed his winnings, which remained under Jordanian control. This was not recognized by most countries, and citizenship in Jordan was not extended to the people there. Egypt did roughly the same with Gaza, as did Lebanon and Syria. The refugees from Palestine were held in a sort of limbo, waiting for Israel's defeat, when they could return.

After Jordan was badly beaten in the '67 war, it's military power was virtually destroyed, and there was a new influx of refugees to Jordan. These began to organize politically and militarily, as the PLO and Fatah, and became a power in Jordan in their own right, one with little respect for Jordanian authority. Once Jordan had rebuilt its armed forces, these attacked the PLO/Fatah, driving them out and into Lebanon, a state also so weak it could not exert authority over these groups. By this time, the thing had gelled: the original wave of refugees had been in camps for a generation, they would not be able to return to lands inn Israel, and were an uncomfortable population to host.

I assure you this account is brutally compressed, and omits much, but covers what I think are the main points bearing on your question.

[edhopper]

6. Egypt

does not want a million Palestinian refugees.
A sad state of affairs.

[Celerity]

30. 2 million or so (some will be killed during battle) IF Gaza is literally flattened to the ground,

completely cleansed, and then taken over as 100% Israeli land.

[UTUSN]

7. Uh, correct me, doesn't it mean not supporting Hamas? (Yeah, I know what "humanitarian" means)

[Xolodno]

12. Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood are allies.

They don't want them on their territory just after they succeeded in, for the most part, putting them down after a few decades. I go to visit Egypt next month and the tour company is bombarding me that they will make sure everything is safe, but should things spill over they will refund me. Told my wife, if that happens then were just going to go back to Cancun and probably do some property shopping. Nothing should happen there, right? Right? RIGHT?

[Ace Rothstein]

25. You should check out Merida if you end up in MX.

Safe travels either way.

[TomDaisy]

13. "a means of ejecting the population permanently and liquidating Palestine"

Link to tweet

[TomDaisy]

15. This source says that Israel is bombing the Rafah corridor

Link to tweet

Israeli occupation forces bomb the only way out of Gaza.

After Netanyahu told Palestinians to leave for Gaza, he proceeded to bomb the Rafah crossing into Egypt.

[Cha]

16. That's Horrible! And, wasn't it Eygpt

that said they told Israel about this.. So why aren't they Helping Palestinians.?

[Happy Hoosier]

20. See Post 3.

In short… they don’t wNt a million refugees and Hamas settin up operations in Egypt.

[Cha]

21. TY.. I saw that after I

posted.

Wonder how happy Residents of GAZA are with HAMAS now?

[moondust]

17. Maybe the U.N.

could borrow a tract of land for a while.

[Tomconroy]

22. Egypt is on the verge of financial collapse.

They cannot afford nor do they want Palestinian refugees.

[JI7]

26. But the children ?

[Tomconroy]

27. The release of the hostages would help their situation.

Perhaps it would be useful to advocate for that.
As far as I can tell Israel's precision bombing campaign is avoiding a lot of collateral damage.

[eissa]

24. Not surprised

Palestinian refugees have caused havoc in both Lebanon and Jordan. Most Arab governments have been reluctant to take in many refugees from conflict zones in the region. It's why so many end up in boats in the Mediterranean trying to get to Europe.

[Celerity]

29. sigh

Although I'm sure we'll get plenty of responses that Egypt refusing is Israel's fault.