Egypt and Jordan- their roles in the conflict

[mids2019]

Were Egypt and Jordan ever considers occupying powers of 'Palestine' before the six day war in the 60s?..Would a solution to this war be for the West bank and Gaza to become protectorate of these nations? There seems to be relatively free modern between the West Bank and Jordan so could you have a similar situation with Egypt where Palestinian refugees made their way there and in return Egypt gained some degree of sovreignty over Gaza?

Gaza was under Egyptian military rule from 1949-56 and again from 57-67.
They have a border of course, but have always been reluctant to open it to Palestinians. They really don't want that problem.
It's a very long and complicated history of course.

You're right though, OP - to add that it does seem like other solutions could have been worked out over the years.

@EmpressOfTheThread

it was interesting to read that Egyptian military rule was oppressive and it effectively governed Gaza as a separate enclave marred with poverty. Israeli occupation seems to have actually been slightly better and of course the 'occjpation' was a result of the six day war.

Yes, I think that reducing the whole situation to simplistic slogans is ignorant and damaging. I don't doubt people will come on here and talk of the current conflict and the Israelis, (I'm not ignoring that) but I don't think there can be a peaceful solution without recognition of the complexities.

There is no way that Egypt and Jordan would want to get involved. Look up "Black September."

It is interesting. In terms of future governance of Gaza Egypt have been mooted as one of the co partners that could provide civilian rule for some period. However historically was their reluctance for Egypt to grant Palestine statehood? There seems to be have been little some by Egypt during its rule to establish a state. The 1967 war seems to have been Egypt losing a protectorate it didn't want to annex to Israel unless I misreading history.

Yes, you're right about the changes brought by the 67 war. @Taciturn is also correct about Black September.

The Palestinians. in what is now known as the "West Bank". had an opportunity to set up a Palestine state in 1948.

Instead they chose to throw their lot in with the Jordanians.

The Jordanians pulled out of the area in 1988. relinquished control and cancelled the Jordanian citizenship of all the Palestinian Arabs living there.
They aren't in any rush to go back there. especially after their king was assassinated by a Palestinian gunman.https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/70-years-ago-jordans-king-assassinated-by-palestinian-on-temple-mount-674480https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/10/palestine-jordan-will-not-reannex-the-west-bank/

It makes the continued 'occuoation' of Palestinian territory a tad more complicated. I think you get a better discussion with those on IMN than those encamped in our universities right now.

I think both Jordan and Egypt are in tricky positions on this as don't they benefit from reasonable diplomatic relations with the West (not perfect of course but compared to Iran.....)

This is what is frustrating - it is such a complicated situation, but is reduced to a simple slogan. Or chant.
I actually have a friend who told me that Gaza was invaded and occupied by Israel from 1948! This person is Head of History at a large comprehensive! It does worry me how poorly informed many people are. People can reach their own conclusions, but that should be based on fact.

So you wouldn't be in favour of a two-state solution?

I'm not convinced that continuing to deny a people their own state in what little viable land remains to them is really going to be a solution. Changing one occupying force for another isn't a great deal of progress.

Personally, I think the recognition of a sovereign Palestinian state is an essential step if people want sustainable peace in the region. Issues such as interim leadership and transition to Palestinian independence, and de-militarisation would of course need to be discussed, and there would probably need to be an independent peace-keeping body protecting borders.

I don't think that's what's being talked about here, @Scirocco , more that it's a very complicated situation, other nations have also had a history with this area and it's not as simple to resolve as some would believe.

Although, @Scirocco I do agree with your last paragraph.

This is a great thread, wonderful to hear the complexities of the situation acknowledged rather than just random inflammatory words thrown around.

The lack of actual knowledge of the history of the region by people who give up their time to protest is genuinely astonishing to me.

@Teddleshon - that's what's been concerning me recently. Just looking at a map of the region would help, also looking at a neutral history (they do exist).

This is the fairest and most sensible solution but I don't know how this is going to achieved. There isn't a single world leader trying to find a way to peace.

I agree.

Personally I doubt if it is possible.

As it is such a big topic I think I'll start another thread on it.

Unfortunately Israel aren't happy with countries that are trying to recognise the state of Palestine and are looking to shut down any dialogue for it

RTE news : Taoiseach warned over Palestine recognition

www.rte.ie/news/2024/0519/1449998-ireland-israel/

The article is really about the hostage release situation, though, isn't it?
That's the major point for the Israelis, the hostages.

It's suggesting recognising the state of Palestine will have a negative impact on hostage release negotiations. I'm unsure why and would have thought it would be part of the negotiations. I doubt the Irish government would want to do anything to jeopardise their safe release so I'll wait to see what they do next and whether they agree.

As far as I am aware @Scirocco , Palestinian leaders have turned down the option of a two state solution more than 100 times over the years. I believe that it has something to do with an uncompromising belief that the entire area belongs to Palestinians, but I am not well versed. From the Wikipedia page on the two state solution:

"The leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation has accepted in principle the concept of a two-state solution since the 1982 Arab Summit in Fez, having previously turned down such proposals since 1937. In 2017, Hamas announced their revised charter, which claims to accept the idea of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, but without recognising the statehood of Israel, referring to it as "the Zionist entity"."

The hostages should be a major concern for everyone. Unfortunately, the current Israeli government and IDF leadership don't seem to have prioritised them.

They didn't kidnap them.
That's the responsibility of those who did so.

@Taciturn as you've mentioned, though, the PLO has been accepting of a two state solution for decades now. Efforts were made, and have been repeatedly sabotaged.

The alternatives to a two state solution would be: total displacement of all Palestinians and eradication of them as a people with any homeland (which I would hope most people can see wouldn't be at all just, and which would involve further bloodshed and human rights violations as we've been seeing), or establishment of a single state incorporating both Israel and Palestine, with equal rights (which would, as a consequence, result in the loss of the only Jewish state in the world, which would not be right either). So, a two state solution really is the better option here.