Gazan Pawns

There is a scene in David Leans’ masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia where T.E. Lawrence is trying to convince Auda abu Tayi, leader of the Howeitat tribe, to participate in an attack on Aqaba in order to expel the Ottoman Turks and take it for "the Arabs."

T.E. Lawrence: We do not work this thing for Faisal.

Auda abu Tayi: No? For the English, then?

T.E. Lawrence: For the Arabs.

Auda abu Tayi: The Arabs? The Howeitat, Ajili, Rala, Beni Saha; these I know, I have even heard of the Harif, but the Arabs? What tribe is that?

Lawrence lures Auda in with his response:

"They're a tribe of slaves. They serve the Turks," and proceeds to finesse Auda into assisting with the attack. Truly, a legendary scene in a legendary movie.

Later in the movie, tribal differences came back into play during the assumption of the governance of Damascus by those "Arabs," with basic infrastructure breaking down because different tribes controlled different parts of it.

Here we bear witness to two of the fundamentals of human nature, both born of tribalism.

In the face of adversity, groups will unite against a common foe. When that adversity eases, the factions and fractures return. We see it in politics, we see it in religion. "Christian" only became a label during the middle of the twentieth century, when increased influence over government was sought, and common cause against secularism was taken up. Prior to that, Protestants in their countless denominations looked upon each other with distrust, Protestants en masse (common cause, again) sought to stand against Catholics, and so forth. In Islam, the rift between Sunni and Shia divides, except when common cause brings Shia (Iran) together with Sunni (Palestinians) against Israel and the West. But, common cause is transient. It only unites until goals are achieved or until conditions change. The tribal fractures persist.

All this came to mind when I read that Jordan and Egypt are refusing to take in refugees from Gaza. Their stated rationale, insofar as I've gathered, is that they don't want to patriate the Palestinians, lest Israel use the opportunity to subsume Gaza and keep them out. That Israel clearly doesn’t mind coexistence with non-murderous Palestinians - there are 1.6 million Palestinians living in Israel - rebuts that assertion, which I'm rather sure is a perpetuation of the policy that created the Palestinian "problem" in the first place: Egypt and Jordan refusing to assimilate their fellow Arabs. No matter that half of Jordan's population is Palestinian, of course. As for Egypt, they've kept the Palestinians out, both in numbers (perhaps 100K out of 110M) and in citizenship (per Wikipedia, "Palestinians and their descendants have never been naturalized and so keep the distinct status of Palestinian refugee."

Meanwhile, Europe has taken in over a million Syrian refugees in the past decade-plus, among the nearly 4 million total Muslims that have migrated in that span.

Why wouldn't Egypt, which has officially recognized Israel since 1979's Camp David Accords or Jordan, which recognized Israel in 1994, help out the Gazans who, we are repeatedly scolded, are victim bystanders in the Hamas-Israel conflict? Jordan took in a million Syrians, and Egypt 150K (along with another 150K from northeastern Africa), so neither are not strangers to refugee populations.

Why, when the West has been so open-armed to people escaping war and privation, won't the proximate nations open their doors to their fellow Arabs?

The conclusion there is that, as with Auda abu Tayi, the "Arab" agglomeration is embraced only when useful. Palestinians have been pawns on the chessboard ever since 1948, to be defended when useful, and sacrificed when there's benefit. Not only is it tragic, it speaks of a cultural and values difference between the Middle East and the West.

Keeping the Palestinians pent up in southern Gaza while Israel and Hamas duke it out just a dozen or two miles to the north aligns with Hamas’ instructions to Gazans not to evacuate despite Israel’s warnings and advance notices. Hamas clearly has no reservation about Palestinian civilians being killed as collateral damage from Israeli reprisals - does Egypt’s leadership share that sentiment?

Throughout the disputes and conflicts in that part of the world, the Arab nations bordering on what they call “Palestine” embraced the Palestinians when they saw common cause against Israel or the West, but rejected common cause the rest of the time.

Yesterday brought us some horrific news: 500 dead after a missile hit a hospital. Hamas immediately blamed Israel (and the Hamas apologists were all too ready to take their word for it), Israel pointed at an errant Islamic Jihad rocket (reminding us that Israel is not simply overrunning a city of scared and compliant Palestinians), and Biden said “Based on what I’ve seen, it was done by the other team,” referring to Hamas. While we should wait for evidence, and while even the most “careful” can err in war, were you to bet, which would you bet on?

Who values human life more, the “Arabs” or the West?