Why Egypt Refuses to Take Over Gaza: Understanding the Complexities Behind the Decision

Egypt has consistently refused to take over the Gaza Strip, primarily due to security concerns, historical baggage, and regional dynamics. This article aims to uncover the reasons behind Egypt's decision and analyze the implications for both Gazans and Israelis.

The Security Concerns

Egypt does not want to deal with the vast number of Hamas supporters, whom they view as brainwashed masses. This intrinsic distrust stems from historical events that have left a lasting impact on Egypt. Most notably, former President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same organization that produced Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, Egypt engaged in a brutal civil war against the Brotherhood, and has faced attacks by Hamas-supporting combatants who crossed into Egyptian territory, resulting in the brutal killing of soldiers.

Historical and Geopolitical Context

Egypt's involvement in Gaza dates back to the early days of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty. When Israel and Egypt made peace, they handed over the entire Sinai Peninsula, but the Gaza Strip was not included in this transfer. The international community and Palestinians did not want Gaza, leading to Egypt's control over the region from 1948 to 1967. When the 6-Day War in 1967 resulted in Israel's takeover of Gaza, Egypt's control ceased.

The peace treaty signed in 1979 involved recognition of Israel, exchange of ambassadors, and the return of the Sinai Peninsula, which contains significant oil resources for Egypt. However, the treaty did not address Gaza. This initial refusal to include Gaza in the peace accord reflects the region's complex dynamics and the challenges faced by Egypt.

Addressing Internal Security Issues

Egypt has taken proactive measures to ensure its security. They have established a robust defensive barrier along the southern Gaza border, complete with extensive troop deployments. These actions are aimed at preventing unauthorized Palestinian movements into Egypt, thus safeguarding their national interests.

Furthermore, Egypt has shown a clear stance against the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups. The recent attacks and instability in Gaza only solidify their resolve to maintain a distance from these regions. This security-minded approach is crucial for Egypt's stability and regional alliances.

Regional and International Dynamics

While some neighboring Arab countries have shown support for Palestinians, Egypt has adopted a pragmatic stance. They believe that engaging with Palestinian groups in Gaza would complicate their relations with other key allies in the region, such as the U.S. and Israel. Egypt's desire to continue moving forward and maintain a forward-looking posture aligns with their diplomatic goals.

Interestingly, even influential figures like Yasser Arafat, the father of the PLO, faced exile from Egypt for his troubled activities. Arafat later sought refuge in Lebanon, among other places, before rising to prominence with the term "Palestinians." This term, which originated as a marketing strategy, helped popularize the concept of Palestinian refugees, but it also underscored the complexities of the conflict.

Although numerous Arab countries have occasionally shown support for Palestinians, this support has often been limited and conditional. Most Arab states, including Egypt, have not embraced a broader partnership with Palestinians due to the ongoing geopolitical tensions and the necessity of maintaining strategic alliances.

For Egypt, prioritizing security, internal stability, and regional stability over direct involvement in Gaza is the most pragmatic approach. This decision reflects a nuanced understanding of the challenges and complexities that come with international diplomacy and regional security.