The Insistence That Gaza Remain Occupied

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

It is difficult to find, in history, political regimes whose function is to conspire against themselves, against their own kin, and against the very foundations of their existence and the existence of the nation under their control. Arab regimes breach every historical norm, going beyond even the most basic requirements of self-respect, bringing in every aggressor on earth to violate the nation’s sanctities. Nations have encroached upon Arabs to the point that Eritrea occupied Yemeni islands in broad daylight, and Ethiopia is now occupying Somalia in plain sight, with the blessing of the Arab regimes.

So it is no surprise that the Arab regimes, the Palestinian Authority included, besiege Gaza just as Israel and America besiege it — indeed, even more so. These are regimes insisting, with a desperate determination, that Gaza remain hostage in the hands of the hateful Zionist occupation. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas is troubled by the matter of the “breach of the Egyptian border,” and it does not seem the hunger of children or the deaths of the elderly disturb his sleep. Anyone listening to him would think Hamas possesses armored divisions and squadrons of aircraft, and that poor Egypt is under dire threat.

Egypt refuses to open the colonial border the English drew between Sinai and the Gaza Strip, saying it is bound by international agreements deserving respect, and that it cannot supply Gaza with its needs. The truth is that Egypt does not respect international rules and covenants, for the following reasons:

First: the Arab League considered the Palestinian cause the foremost Arab cause in 1944, 1946, 1947, 1951, 1952, and other years, and pledged to take every step to liberate Palestine — to liberate Palestine, not to reach an understanding with Israel. In signing the Camp David Accords, Egypt violated the resolutions of the Arab League.

Second: the United Nations Charter stipulates that occupying land by force is impermissible. Israel is an occupying state, and Egypt is required to implement the resolutions of the United Nations.

Third: numerous international resolutions demand that Israel withdraw from the territory occupied in ‘67, and it does not seem Egypt respects the will of the people of Gaza to expel the occupation.

Fourth: the right of resistance is a lawful right, and it does not seem Egypt is helping the people of Gaza to fulfill the requirements of what is called “international legitimacy” regarding resistance and expelling the occupation.

Fifth: Israel violates many provisions of the Geneva Conventions concerning the rights of peoples under occupation, and Egypt does not lift a finger against these violations.

Sixth: it is Gaza’s right to obtain food from Egypt or from Arab states, and it is not wise for it to remain dependent on the occupying state for its supplies. The Arab regimes, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority included, insist, through their current positions, on the necessity of the occupation of Gaza continuing, or on it being controlled by Israel from outside the fence.

Seventh: Egypt is not a party to the Rafah crossing agreement, and there is nothing obligating it to that agreement.

The Egyptian regime keeps repeating its concern for Egypt’s sovereignty, and threatens the people of Gaza with opening fire should they open the border. It seems the regime does not understand the meaning of sovereignty — it sees in a child searching for food a danger, while it sees in American warships a gentle burden. American warships violate Egyptian territorial waters every day, and just yesterday Americans killed Egyptians, and the Egyptian army did not open fire on American warships. Israel violates the sanctity of Sinai’s territory and Egyptian territorial waters, and not a hair on the regime’s body trembles. Egypt cannot even act militarily in Sinai without permission from Israel. Did Egypt’s sovereignty come to a halt at the children of Gaza?

The people of Gaza are not thinking of “breaching” the Egyptian border, but of opening the border with Egypt, because the relationship with Egypt is a relationship of brotherhood, not a relationship of hostility. There is a vast difference between a breach and an opening of the border. Opening the border is the right of the people of Gaza, and it is required that Gaza be freed from dependence on the Zionist enemy for its supplies. Gaza must buy what it needs from Egypt, so it can be freed from Israeli pressure — unless the goal is for the occupation itself to remain.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الإصرار على بقاء غزة محتلة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.