What legal status and rights did Palestinians in Gaza hold under Egyptian administration (1949–1967)?
Executive summary
Between 1949 and 1967 the Gaza Strip lived under Egyptian military administration: Egypt controlled governance and security but never annexed the territory or granted Gazans Egyptian citizenship, instead leaving them in a legally ambiguous status dependent on Egyptian-issued travel documents, UNRWA services, and limited local institutions whose powers were constrained by Cairo [1] [2] [3]. Gazans’ civil and political rights were therefore circumscribed by occupation-style rule, restricted movement, economic marginalization, and reliance on international relief, even as Egypt presented the arrangement as caretaker stewardship for the Palestinian cause [4] [5] [6].
1. Legal sovereignty and administrative control: an occupation without annexation
After the 1948 war Egypt assumed administration of the Gaza Strip under armistice terms and installed a military governor, supervising local institutions while stopping short of legal annexation—Cairo treated Gaza as under Egyptian control but not part of the Egyptian state, and repeatedly subordinated the nominal All-Palestine Government to its authority [7] [4] [1].
2. The All-Palestine façade and pragmatic Egyptian trusteeship
The All-Palestine Government declared in 1948 functioned largely as a symbolic, Egypt-dependent entity: it had little administration, no independent finances or army, and its authority in practice rested on Egyptian support; scholars and contemporaneous accounts describe it as a façade or puppet structure rather than a full sovereign government [8] [2] [9].
3. Citizenship, passports and movement: restricted status, shifting documents
Egypt did not offer Gazans Egyptian nationality; Palestinians in Gaza were issued All-Palestine passports early on and, later, Egyptian-issued travel documents that omitted the All-Palestine name—meanwhile Gaza residents were generally not permitted free entry into Egypt, reflecting a deliberately non-citizen, restricted status [2] [6] [3].
4. Political rights and local governance: limited, supervised institutions
Cairo allowed some local governance mechanisms—basic laws and a modest Legislative Council created in the 1950s and a 1962 constitution-like Basic Law are recorded—but these bodies operated under Egyptian military administration and their powers were narrow; popular Palestinian self-rule was curtailed and ultimate authority remained with Egyptian-appointed officials [1] [3] [10].
5. Civil life and economic rights: a constrained “reservation” economy
The influx of refugees and Egypt’s restrictions on movement produced chronic unemployment and dependence on relief; Gaza was described by contemporaries as a reservation or ghetto with limited natural resources and few economic opportunities, and many residents relied on UNRWA aid rather than Egyptian social services [5] [6] [8].
6. Security, legal system and human rights under military rule
Gaza’s administration functioned under military law and security prerogatives: Egypt exercised policing and security control, responded to cross-border incidents, and at times suppressed armed groups—meaning ordinary judicial and political protections were secondary to security imperatives of the occupying administration [4] [11] [10].
7. Refugee status and international dependence
The majority of Gaza’s population after 1948 consisted of refugees whose welfare was handled primarily by the American Friends Service Committee initially and then UNRWA; Egypt’s role emphasized containment and administration rather than integration, leaving refugees dependent on international aid and Palestinian institutions with limited capacity [3] [6] [8].
8. Interruptions, contestation and the limits of Egyptian policy
Egyptian control was interrupted briefly by Israeli occupation during the 1956 Suez Crisis and ended with Israel’s capture of Gaza in 1967; throughout the period inter-Arab rivalries, shifting Egyptian priorities under Nasser, and competing claims (Jordan, Palestinian factions) meant Gaza’s legal status remained contested and mutable rather than firmly settled [8] [9] [10].