Sealing off the Gaza Strip?

Egyptian security officials have said they are digging steel tubes into the ground on their side of the border and are paving a road that will have devices along its route to monitor smuggling. The US Army Corps of Engineers, which is reportedly involved, has worked with the Egyptians on preventing smuggling along this border for at least two years.

The steel wall would reportedly run for about 9 or 10 kilometers along the Egyptian-Gazan border, and take roughly 18 months to build.

Ha'aretz appears to have started the controversy yesterday with a story sourced to anonymous Egyptian security officials. A different set of security sources denied the report (عربي) to Al-Shorouk today.

Security sources denied that Cairo is constructing a wall,. or has made a decision about the wall; they stressed that Egypt intends to "deal seriously with the smuggling, but can stop it without building such a wall."

Al-Shorouk also quoted an "expert on national security affairs," Gen. Mohamed el-Zayat, who said the Egyptian government is actually "looking to ease the siege on Gaza" and open the Rafah crossing permanently.

Al-Jazeera reports that there are bulldozers and other construction equipment along the border; Egyptian sources say they're just performing "routine maintenance."

For my part, I'm skeptical of these reports. Sealing off the Gaza Strip would be a politically disastrous move for the Mubarak government, in terms of domestic and regional public opinion. I'm not sure why Mubarak would go ahead with the plan -- certainly not now, when there's not much international pressure to tackle smuggling (rocket fire from Gaza into Israel has hit a lull).

Still, the prevalence of these reports -- and the harsh reaction in the Arab world -- illustrates the degree to which Israel's brutal treatment of Gazans continues to aggravate public opinion (and rightfully so, we would add).

The Golan bill

Then there's a bill moving through the Israeli parliament -- the so-called "Golan bill." It would require any "return of land" to undergo a national referendum and receive approval from the Knesset. That means the Israeli government couldn't return any land occupied after 1967 -- the Golan Heights, for example, or the Shebaa Farms area -- without a lengthy and difficult process.

(It would not apply to the West Bank, which was never officially annexed by Israel, and thus would not be "returned.")

The bill, which is supported by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, cleared an initial reading yesterday; it now heads to a committee for further review.

Coalition chairman Ze'ev Elkin called the decision "historic." He said "the citizens of this country can now sleep soundly knowing that in any future decision to relinquish territory, the public will have its say, and the Mitsubishi trick [of purchasing an MK'svote] that allowed the Oslo II Accord to pass [in 1995] will never be able to be used again."

Defense Minister Ehud Barak drew fire from his own party Wednesday after he and two of his allies were the only faction members to vote in favor.

The Ha'aretz columnist Aluf Benn had a thoughtful column today about how Netanyahu is "tying his own hands" by pursuing the bill. (Benn assumes, of course, that Netanyahu is really interested in pursuing peace.)

Israel's neighbors have already spoken out against the bill. Syria's foreign ministry said today that the law would "close the door" to peace talks, because the Golan Heights are still a precondition for negotiations (despite what Netanyahu claims).

So, yes, it's great that Obama is popular and all, but that doesn't change any of the realities on the ground.