Egypt detains nearly 200 foreigners who flew in to join Gaza march
Egyptian authorities have detained and questioned more than 200 people who arrived in Cairo to participate in the Global March to Gaza, an international action intended to break Israel's siege on the territory, the organisers said on Thursday.
According to the march organisers, some 4000 people from over 40 countries had booked flights to Cairo, with many already arriving ahead of the planned march.
The activists had flown to Cairo to join a grassroots land convoy which set off from the Tunisian capital on Monday in the hopes of reaching Egypt's Rafah border with Gaza as a 'symbolic act' to spotlight Israel's crippling 18-year siege on the territory.
Thousands of volunteers from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia left the Tunisian capital in a 100-vehicle convoy to raise international awareness of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and deliver life-saving aid, organisers said. An online tracker shows that they are in the Libyan city of Misrata as of Thursday afternoon.
They also said that the Egyptian government has yet to officially respond to their request for permission to proceed with the march but that they are planning to proceed with it anyway.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
"We hope to be able to work alongside the Egyptian government as a key and valued partner. Our priorities are the same: demanding the end of the Palestinian genocide," the organisers said in a statement Thursday shared with Middle East Eye.
The initiative's spokesperson, Saif Abu Keshek, told AFP that over 200 pro-Palestine activists had been detained at Cairo airport 'or are being questioned at hotels across Cairo,' adding that detainees include US, Dutch, Australian, French, Spanish, Moroccan and Algerian nationals.
The activists were set to travel by bus to the city of El-Arish in the Sinai Peninsula on Friday, before embarking on a march to the border with Gaza, where they will camp for three days in a bid to pressure the authorities to open the border.
According to Abu Keshek, plainclothes police rounded up activists in Cairo hotels, questioning them and in some cases confiscating mobile phones and searching personal belongings.
He added that following interrogations, some activists were arrested, while others were released.
"Our legal services are working on these cases, as we have all complied with all the legal requirements of the Egyptian authorities," the organisers said in a statement on Thursday.
"Meanwhile, thousands of march participants are already in Egypt, ready to begin the journey to El-Arish tomorrow and then continue on foot to Rafah, where we hope to arrive this Sunday."
Deportations
Egyptian news outlet Mada Masr reported that 40 Algerian nationals were detained on Wednesday morning and released after 24 hours, while 10 members of a delegation arriving from Morocco were reportedly turned back at the airport.
Several Turkish nationals were also reportedly deported after they raised Palestinian flags outside their hotel, according to a source that spoke to Mada Masr.
North African 'resilience convoy' heads to Gaza, aiming to break Israel's siege Read More »
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz has urged the Egyptian authorities to block 'the jihadist protesters,' insisting that they 'would endanger the safety of (Israeli) soldiers and will not be allowed".
He added that if Cairo fails to halt the march, Israeli forces would intervene to stop it.
While the Egyptian foreign ministry has said that it backs 'pressure on Israel' to lift its crippling blockade on Gaza, it stressed that foreigners seeking to visit the border must receive official approval.
A government source was quoted by Mada Masr as saying that the Egyptian authorities had tried to coordinate with departure countries to prevent the participants from reaching Egypt.
The "Sumud" convoy, which means resilience and steadfastness in Arabic, is currently at Libya's Misrata.
It includes trade union and political figures, as well as human rights activists, athletes, lawyers, doctors, journalists, and members of youth organisations.
Some pro-government figures in Egypt claim the plan is a "political scheme" by people affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is outlawed in Egypt - labelling it an "anti-Egyptian establishment", rather than a pro-Palestinian, effort.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts
Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region. Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past. But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it? Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side? Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity. If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved? Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US." Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it." Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict." What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war? Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country." Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu." Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening." Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]." The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why? Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States." Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]." Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace." Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way? Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that." Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want." Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families." Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does? Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards." Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?" Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke." Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous? Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it." Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel." Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."
Middle East Eye
5 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Exclusive: US quietly sent hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before Iran attack
The US quietly delivered hundreds of Hellfire missiles to Israel before its unprecedented attack on Iran on Friday, Middle East Eye can reveal. The US sent around 300 Hellfire missiles to Israel on Tuesday in a large-scale stock-up of supplies before its attack, and as the Trump administration was saying it was ready to continue engaging Iran in nuclear talks. The transfer of such a large quantity of Hellfires suggests that the Trump administration was well-informed of Israel's plans to attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, two US officials told MEE on the condition of anonymity. The US's delivery of Hellfires or other large quantities of weapons in the lead up to Friday's attack has not been previously reported. The US military helped shoot down Iranian missiles that were headed towards Israel, two US officials told Reuters on Friday. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Hellfires are laser-guided air-to-ground missiles. They would not be useful for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, but for precision strikes. Israel's military used more than 100 aircraft in its attack on Friday, which used precision tracking to target senior military officials, nuclear scientists, and command centres. 'There is a time and place for Hellfires. They were useful to Israel,' one senior US defence official told MEE. Israel killed scores of senior Iranian officials and nuclear scientists on Friday. Whether with a green light or grudging acceptance, Trump enters war with Iran Read More » The dead include: the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami; Major General Mohammad Bagheri, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces; and Ali Shamkhani, a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Trump administration knew about Israel's attack plans for months. MEE revealed earlier this month that the CIA was briefed in April and May on Israeli plans to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's Target Systems Analysis and battle plan for cyberattacks combined with precision strikes without any direct US involvement 'impressed' the administration. But Trump's behaviour in recent months gave observers, and potentially the Iranians, the impression that he would continue to resist Netanyahu's very public lobbying to go along with strikes. Axios reported on Friday, citing two Israeli officials, that the Trump administration was only 'pretending' to resist Israel's attack plans, but privately did not resist them. Trump has since framed his approach as saying that he gave Iran a 60-day window to agree to a new nuclear agreement with his administration before launching strikes. Israeli media reported the 60-day deadline in March 2025. The Trump administration began talks with Iran on 12 April 2025, and the Israeli attack took place exactly 61 days later. The talks in recent weeks hit a wall over the US's insistence that Iran agree not to enrich any uranium, while Tehran said that preserving its right to a low level of enrichment was a red line. Throughout the negotiations, the Trump administration continued a steady supply of arms and weapons to Israel in recent months, two US officials told MEE. The US did not have to provide public notification of the transfer because it was already approved as part of a $7.4bn arms deal that included bombs, missiles, and related equipment that Congress was notified of in February 2025.
Middle East Eye
7 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
How US leaders, lawmakers and civil society reacted to Israel's strikes on Iran
Israel attacked Iran early Friday morning, striking, among other sites, nuclear facilities across the country and killing high-ranking Iranian generals. Later on Friday, Iran launched a barrage of missiles targeting Israel, with several making impact in Tel Aviv. The wave of missiles continued at the time of writing. Israel's surprise attack killed at least 78 people, including Hossein Salami, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Israel struck residential areas, and civilians were among the dead, according to Iranian media. Israel's brazen attack has drawn condemnation from several countries around the world. In the US, however, the response has been mixed. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Several lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, expressed support for the attacks, while others, including sections of civil society, have raised concerns over how the developments could usher in more instability in the region, already heaving under a catastrophic Israeli war in Gaza. Over 55,000 Palestinians have been killed as a result of Israel's war on Gaza, which several countries, as well as many international rights groups and experts, now qualify as an act of genocide. Here is a wrap of how American politicians, lawmakers and segments of civil society have reacted to Israel's attacks on Iran. Politicians and lawmakers Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied American involvement in the attack and warned Iran against targeting US forces in the region. Despite Rubio's comments that the US was not involved in the attack, President Donald Trump appeared to issue statements that suggested the White House was fully on board with Israel's actions on Iran. "There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire,' Trump said Friday. Likewise, Republican Party officials appeared united in support of Israel's attacks. Israel's attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression, legal scholars say Read More » Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, a Republican, applauded the attacks and posted on social media that 'Israel IS right—and has a right—to defend itself'. Senator Lindsey Graham also praised the strikes, writing on social media, 'hats off to Israel for one of the most impressive military strikes and covert operations in Israeli history'. Democrats appeared more divided between pro-Israel hardliners and progressives. Representative John Fetterman from Pennsylvania applauded the attack, posting 'Beepers v2.0 I love it. 🇮🇱' He was referencing the surprise attack Israel carried out against Hezbollah last September, in which exploding pagers killed dozens and maimed thousands, including children. Representative Ritchie Torres from New York, known to be a vehement supporter of Israel, also praised the attack, writing, 'Israel is not the aggressor. It is defending itself against an existential threat that long predates the present preemptive strike.' Torres also noted Iran's support for Hamas as a justification for the Israeli strikes. Other Democrats, such as Chris Murphy and Ilhan Omar, condemned Israel's strikes against Iran. Democrat Jack Reed, a leading member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, decried Israel's assault as 'a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence'. Advocacy groups Several advocacy groups in the US have spoken out strongly against the attacks. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) was quick to condemn the Israeli attacks. 'This strike was unprovoked and illegal under international law. It has needlessly put many innocent people in mortal danger,' NIAC wrote in a statement on Friday morning. Similarly, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (Cair) criticised the strikes and urged the Trump administration to halt military aid to Israel. Israel's attack on Iran: How the world reacted Read More » In a statement issued on Friday, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) said that Israel's targeted assassination campaign against Iranian military leaders, prominent scientists, and academics "once again displays its unrestrained campaigns of psychological terror, further destabilizing regional security and undermining global peace pleas". "Israel, who has the largest nuclear arsenal in the region and who refuses to become party to non-proliferation treaties, is a rogue state determined to drag the United States into a constant state of war," the ADC said. The ADC also said that Americans were against military action against Iran. It cited a May 2025 poll conducted by the University of Maryland that found that 69 percent of Americans, including two-thirds of Republicans, preferred a negotiated agreement to military action against Iran's nuclear programme. Several Jewish organisations - both pro-Zionist and anti-occupation - issued statements of support and condemnation. Morriah Kaplan, from IfNotNow, said that the Israeli military's "reckless attack on Iran needlessly puts the region on the brink of all-out war". "The lives of Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, and people throughout the region who do not want war are at grave risk. "Instead of warmongering, the Trump administration and the international community must do everything in its power to deescalate and to stop providing the weapons Israel is using as they threaten a broader regional war," Kapalan added. Meanwhile, the pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League (ADL) supported the attacks, saying they were conducted in self-defence and were necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran denies seeking the development of nuclear weapons. The Palestinian Youth Movement wrote that 'tonight's airstrikes demonstrate clearly that Zionism and Imperialism's war is one not against Palestine alone, but a war against the entire region'.
