The mortuary temple of Rameses the third on the west bank of Thebes is a sight to behold. I am particularly obsessed with the preservation of colors on its walls and ceilings, which until the most recent restoration at Karnak was unique. Outside the temple though, you can see the remains of much less glorious mud brick walls that were used to protect the temple. Then you get to the entrance, which is through a narrow doorway in a huge pylon that looks like the ramparts of a castle. Kind of overkill for a temple.
To understand why, you have to see some of the less colorful depictions inside the temple. They show (and tell of) the victory of Rameses III over the sea people. This is one of the best accounts of this mysterious wave that triggered the Bronze Age collapse. Among the people that Rameses fought were a people that gave their name to the Roman province of Palestine.
On the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing, the gateway looks curiously like that of the temple at Madinet Habu. In fact, most New Kingdom temples kind of look like fortresses. This paranoia is based entirely on Egypt's experience with its northeast. In the second intermediate period, a people known as the Hyksos invaded Egypt from Canaan and caused the country to crumble. There is a sense of “never again” from the New Kingdom on Canaan. But it would happen again, and again.
Egypt always understood that key to its strange relation with the Levant is Sinai. Sinai is a place where Egyptians have been since the pre-dynastic period. The mines of southern Sinai were integral to Egypt's economy and all through dynastic Egypt, there was a particular fixation with ensuring the area always remained under Egypt's control. Key to preserving the peace in Sinai is the way of Horus, a series of fortresses along the coast in northern Sinai, designed to strengthen Egypt against the inexorable attacks coming from that direction. Anyone who wanted to enter had to go through a gauntlet of gates of Habu.
Egypt’s entanglement with the Levant never stopped. In Fatimid, Ayubid, and Mamluk Egypt; the Levant was the source of never ending crusader attempts to invade the country. Although this sometimes came from the sea, it often came from the Sinai. In Mamluk Egypt, an existential threat came from farther east and descended upon Egypt from the Levant: the Mongols. Egypt was on its way to disappear from the surface of Earth, like Khwarazm before it. But the Mamluks decided that the only way to save Egypt was to fight the Mongols where Egypt’s weakness lies. The first battle between Mamluk Egypt and the Mongols was in Gaza. Egypt won.
In 1956, during the Suez crisis, Israel, unprovoked, invaded Sinai in collaboration with France and the UK. Moshe Dayan stood in the Knesset and declared that Israel had established a new reality. The “armistice lines” of 1948 (read international borders) no longer meant anything. Many westerners wonder why “The Arabs” never tried peace with Israel. All evidence we have is that Nasser was initially very interested in peace with Israel, but that moment in 1956 certainly gave everyone in Egypt pause. Was Israel interested in peace?
When Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, reactions in Egypt was mixed. There was the usual cohort of Islamists, western sponsored democracy activists, and leftists who were giddy at "Palestinians freeing themselves with their own hands". But the nature of the Hamas attacks also meant that for the first time there was sympathy for Israel. The Israelis also did a good job with communicating, and sometimes miscommunication what Hamas did in this initial stage. On a human level, a lot of people in Egypt felt sorry for the civilians in Israel who in a way had nothing to do with the suffering of the Palestinians.
But we know the playbook. It would take ten days for Israel to burn a bunch of Palestinian kids to a crisp and any Egyptian sympathy for the Israelis would disappear. Westerners would hold on a bit because Israelis killing children is different because of reasons. But a week later maybe they'd catch up. And this is playing out as usual for most countries. Except Egypt.
Because almost immediately after the attacks, Israel started suggesting, sometimes explicitly, that the Palestinians should exit Gaza to the Sinai. Western officials also immediately embraced this, talking about "humanitarian corridors".
Now the reaction from Egypt towards this would not surprise anyone in Egypt. What I find surprising is that the west was shocked at Egypt's reaction. In Egypt, the suggestion confirmed what many had always suspected: Israel plans to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians from Gaza into Sinai so it can annex Gaza. It would do the same for the West Bank, this time depopulating it into Jordan. While some had always dismissed this as far fetched, it was now explicit. Israel as an expansionist entity that knows no borders was reignited in the minds of many.
This is rejected in Egypt. It is rejected in upper Egypt and in lower Egypt; by Muslims and Christians; by secularists, Islamists, and non-ists. It is rejected at the political level, at the military level, at the cultural level, and at the popular level. It is rejected for the sake of Palestinians and for the sake of Egyptians. It is rejected on a boat, it is rejected with a goat. And Egyptian officials, including the president have been blunt and direct in how much rejected this is in language Egypt has not used in decades.
None of this is surprising to anyone who knows the bare minimum about Egypt. Which is why what I find surprising, is the surprise of American and European officials at the reaction of Egypt. It seems they genuinely thought we would be OK with depopulating Gaza and giving up the Sinai. Or maybe they had no idea what causing an exodus from Gaza would mean. I do not know which is worse honestly.
I have always known that westerners view everyone in the region as just an amorphous blob devoid of culture, history, or national identity. And I have always not cared. But I had forgotten that these perceptions sometimes have real world impacts. And here was one. The west saw Egypt as non-distinct and having no national identity. The west, saw Egypt as having no national identity. Egypt. The country that invented national identity.
Even to officials at the highest level of government, we are all just interchangeable brown people. And then there are others, who see us refusing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and then say, hey it seems the Egyptians hate the Palestinians. Well, again I don't care if you do not understand, but the problem is this is starting to have real world consequences. For example, how western media keeps insisting that Egypt does not want to open Rafah for aid, when Israel explicitly keeps screaming that they are the ones who refuse to open it.
Thus, it took a few days of disbelief on both sides as Europeans and Americans say things like hey Palestinians, Egyptians, what’s the difference; while Egyptians stare in disbelief at the utter lack of understanding of culture, history, and the worth of people. I do not think that westerners understand how this suggestion is insulting to both Egyptians and Palestinians.
But there is also an incredible lack of insight. Let us assume Egypt lets everyone in from Palestine. How? How can you guarantee that Hamas doesn’t also come in? And if they come in, wouldn’t that allow them a much longer border from which to attack Israel? I don’t know if Israel didn’t think of this. Perhaps they did and this is the feature not the bug. Maybe they want a pretext to invade Sinai again. But did Europe and America not think of it? Because I don’t know which is worse, if they thought it out or if they didn’t.
It seems that for now the west seems to have backed off from supporting ethnically cleansing Gaza into Sinai. Ethnic cleansing bad. But the new plan is in. When asked what next, Israel is now suggesting that they will “cut ties” with Gaza. And we are already starting to hear brilliant ideas about “integrating” Gaza with Egypt coming in from the Likes of John Bolton.
Now there is a built in resistance to resettling Palestinians in Sinai that goes across the board in Egypt, which is why the country came down on this suggestion like a brick wall. There has not been enough time to develop resistance to the idea of an “Egyptian administered Gaza”. I can see some Nasserists and maybe some Islamists being fine with it. I can see cracks.
But this is a very bad idea. First, it destroys the Palestinians, because Israel all of a sudden gets rid of half the Palestinian population between the river and the sea. It can then turn to the real prize, the west bank where annexation and ever shrinking Bantustans can finally kill the Palestinian cause and lead to a mini “Greater Israel”.
But even for Egypt this is a shit idea. What does “integrating” Gaza mean? And what is Egypt’s responsibility for this “integrated Gaza”? How do we keep security in it? Will we? Why are we supposed to govern a totally different people? Because yes, they have their own distinct identity, and it's time for western people to realize this.
But I am not really worried that Egypt will end up with this burden. Because I have finally decoded the Israelis. Israel is a tactical marvel. Give the Israelis a specific aim and they will do it brilliantly and efficiently. Control this area, and kill this guy! They will do it and they will do it better than anyone. They have a professional, well trained, and motivated army; and they are brilliant with high tech.
However, I do not think Israel ever had strategy. Israel never had vision. Even the strategic and self evidently beneficial decision to have peace with Egypt, I don't think the Israelis would have ever done it. This was started by president Sadat, and the Israelis tried their best to sabotage it even if it was obviously good for Israel and good for Jews. It took a lot of sticks and a lot of carrots from the Americans to get Israel to do it.
Israel's strategy and vision has always been a trail of brain farts. It is hard to see this because they are technically and tactically proficient to a degree that staggers an observer. But it is true. Asking them what the plan is for anything is never going to get you anywhere, and it's not because they have a master plan, it's because they don't know. They are just crossing bridges as they come, but they have no idea to where.
So this brilliant plan for Gaza, what will Gaza be? OK so Israel "disengages" from Gaza, and then what. Egypt will never annex Gaza. So what is Gaza? There are only two options, an independent Gaza, in which case they get control of their borders, territorial waters, harbor, and airport. This is a nightmare for Israel because they would start messing with it in the Mediterranean and would inspire a lot of hope in the West Bank. So Gaza is not independent? Then Israel has not disengaged from Gaza, because it will keep it under blockade at sea and through the air.
So what are the Israelis thinking? Well, nothing really. It's just another ephemeral cloud in the trail of brain farts. The question is, will the west continue to give unconditional support to this aimless trail?
