Why Egypt blocked the Global March to Gaza
https://arab.news/ytg2h
Thousands of activists arrived in Egypt in early June on a mission to march from North Sinai to the Rafah border crossing, demanding an end to Israel's blockade on Gaza and the delivery of humanitarian aid. The Global March to Gaza brought together participants from over 40 countries, including the US, European nations, and North African states in a striking display of solidarity with the Palestinian people.
But as the convoy advanced toward Egypt's eastern frontier, it was met with a firm response. Dozens of foreign activists were detained upon arrival in Cairo, questioned at airports, and in many cases deported before the march could even begin. Some critics saw this reaction as incompatible with Egypt's long-standing support for the Palestinian cause. But this interpretation oversimplifies a complex reality. Egypt's stance was neither a rejection of Gaza nor a withdrawal of support. It was a reaffirmation that solidarity must operate within the framework of state sovereignty, national security, and the rule of law.
The area surrounding Rafah is not ordinary terrain. It lies within the Sinai Peninsula, where there has been years of terrorism and military operations. For over a decade, Egyptian forces have fought extremist terrorist groups there, and the region remains under heightened military alert. In such a context, the presence of thousands of foreign demonstrators, however peaceful their purpose, posed a tangible risk. Unregulated gatherings near a militarized border could become targets for violence, be exploited by hostile actors, or unintentionally trigger confrontation.
Egyptian authorities were clear: they reserve the right to regulate the movement of individuals within their territory, especially in sensitive areas. On the eve of the planned march, the Foreign Ministry affirmed Egypt's right to take all necessary measures to safeguard national security. The message was unambiguous: expressions of international solidarity are welcome, but not at the expense of Egypt's stability or sovereignty.
Cairo's approach must be understood in light of its consistent position on Gaza. Egypt has played a leading role in facilitating aid, diplomacy, and humanitarian coordination since the current conflict began. It was among the first Arab states to call for a ceasefire and for expanded access for humanitarian assistance. When Rafah was open, Egypt facilitated the passage of medical aid and evacuees through its side of the border. The Egyptian Red Crescent has been the key operator of relief supplies. It is Israel's closure of the Gaza side of the crossing that has prevented the steady flow of aid, not any failure on Egypt's part.
Nevertheless, Egypt insists that any form of engagement near its borders must follow legal and administrative procedures. Foreign delegations must obtain authorization to access areas such as Rafah. Mass protests in a restricted military zone, however well-intentioned, are not seen as legitimate means of pressure. This is not an attempt to suppress activism, but to preserve a functional and secure border in a volatile environment. Egypt's position would probably be echoed by any sovereign nation under similar conditions.
At the heart of this stance lies a critical truth: Egypt rejects any implication that it should assume responsibility for Gaza's fate, especially if that means opening its territory to mass displacement. Cairo has consistently resisted proposals that could turn Sinai into a refuge for Palestinians fleeing Israeli aggression. The concern is not driven by a lack of empathy, but by a strategic imperative to prevent demographic shifts that might absolve Israel of its legal obligations to the Palestinian population. Egypt supports Gaza's people not by dismantling borders, but by defending the principle that they belong in their homeland, with their rights intact.
From Egypt's perspective, the symbolic act of marching on Rafah misses a key point: the power to open or close the crossing lies with Israel. Since May 2024, Israeli forces have sealed the Gaza side of Rafah, preventing not only aid deliveries but also the exit of injured civilians and medical teams. In this context, Egypt sees mass mobilization at its own gate as misdirected. No amount of protest on the Egyptian side can physically unlock a door shut by the Israeli military. The energy of international solidarity, Egypt argues, would be better spent lobbying the governments of the world to pressure Israel directly to end the blockade.
The situation presents Egypt with a difficult balancing act. On one hand, it faces pressure from global civil society, humanitarian organizations and a sympathetic public outraged by Gaza's suffering. On the other, it must navigate the demands of regional stability, Israeli sensitivities, and Western diplomatic concerns. Days before the scheduled demonstration, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called publicly on Egypt to stop the marchers, branding them 'jihadists' and warning of threats to Israeli forces. Western governments, too, entered into quiet conversations with Cairo. France, for instance, contacted Egyptian officials regarding detained nationals, implicitly recognizing Egypt's right to enforce laws on its territory. In the end, the gathering was halted, not out of hostility to Gaza, but in defense of national order and legal responsibility.
Egypt's response underscores a broader principle: the state is not governed by emotion alone, but by a rational balance of values, security, and sovereignty. Cairo's actions do not represent a retreat from supporting Gaza. Rather, they reflect an effort to channel that support in ways that preserve regional stability and protect the state's role as a responsible actor.
What Egypt seeks now, and what the international solidarity movement must consider, is cooperation, not confrontation. The shared goals remain: ending the siege of Gaza, delivering aid, and securing justice for the Palestinian people. But to achieve this, engagement must be structured, lawful, and politically intelligent. Solidarity must remain strong, but also mature — anchored in realism, not spectacle; coordination, not disruption. In today's fraught geopolitical climate, working with Egypt, not against it, may be the surest path to meaningful impact.
• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
Egypt delays opening of massive new museum
CAIRO: Egyptian authorities announced on Saturday that the long-awaited inauguration of the Grand Egyptian Museum, known as GEM, would once again be delayed as a result of escalating regional tensions. 'In view of the ongoing regional developments, it was decided to postpone the official inauguration of the Grand Egyptian Museum, which was scheduled for July 3,' the Tourism and Antiquities Ministry said in a statement. Spanning 50 hectares, the GEM is twice the size of both Paris' Louvre and New York's Metropolitan, and two-and-a-half times that of the British Museum, according to its director. Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly told a press conference on Saturday that the grand opening would be delayed until the last quarter of this year. In view of current events, 'we believed it would be appropriate to delay this big event so that it can maintain the appropriate global momentum,' he added. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi has previously described the GEM as 'the largest archeological museum in the world dedicated to one civilization.' The opening of the massive, ultra-modern museum situated near the Giza Pyramids has been repeatedly delayed over the years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other reasons.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
The enemy of my enemy could be my enemy as well
Not every proverb that sounds plausible is necessarily universally true, and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend,' which is thought to originate from an Indian Sanskrit treatise, the Arthasastra, dating back to around the 4th century B.C., is no exception. On more than one occasion in history, the enemy of one's enemy has proved, in fact, to be one's enemy as well. I was reminded of this proverb when I learned that Israeli authorities have been arming a Palestinian militia in Gaza — as if there was not already enough weaponry there to cause horrific bloodshed — as part of their efforts to 'eliminate' Hamas. For more than a year we have repeatedly heard from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel was 'a step away from victory' in this effort. This has proved to be more a case of wishful thinking than reality. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming what it calls a 'clan' that operates in the Rafah area and is led by Yasser Abu Shabab who, according to the European Council on Foreign Affairs, is a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks, has been jailed by Hamas for drug smuggling, and 'has alleged ties' with Daesh. Not your ordinary guy who you would want to mix with, then. His group consists of anything from 100 to 250 armed men, and is somewhere between a militia and a criminal gang — most probably both. To find an ally in times of conflict is to gain an asset, and to divide and rule is another war tactic known since the dawn of history. But if allies are not selected carefully, the long-term unintended consequences can be worse than the immediate supposed benefits. The Soviet Union was hardly a friend of the West after the Second World War, but the US decision to arm the mujahideen when the Russians invaded Afghanistan came back to haunt Washington, for example. Similarly, Israel's support of Hamas in its early days, as a counter to Fatah, and continuing to do so until the disastrous consequences of this manifested themselves on Oct. 7, 2023, was an act of sheer self-harm. Why they would now repeat that mistake with a similar folly is incomprehensible. Netanyahu did not hide his true intentions when asked about arming Abu Shabab's group. He said: 'We have mobilized clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas. What's wrong with that?' The answer to his question is: Where do we start? Netanyahu's interpretation of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' reveals ignorance and an extreme lack of judgment, possibly signs of desperation, and the air of a colonialist approach. He is confusing the concept of a clan with what is simply a band of criminals, wrongly equating the latter with legitimate local leaders who represent the best interests of their people — alliances that have been a method of maintaining control that occupying forces have employed for centuries. But forging an alliance with legitimate local leaders is very different from being in cahoots with those who for months have been accused by Palestinians and international humanitarian organizations of looting aid lorries and profiting from the misery of their own people. In their inability to achieve the unrealistic goal of eliminating Hamas, Israeli authorities are instead coming up with ideas that are detached from reality. In this case they are looking for allies that appear uninterested in helping to fulfill the national aspirations of the Palestinian people and instead are more interested in enriching themselves, and possibly gaining political power. Netanyahu has now publicly acknowledged that Israel is arming Yasser Abu Shabab, a gang leader who is widely accused of looting aid trucks. Yossi Mekelberg It is obvious why Israel opposes Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. But the organization has said — though the claim has yet to be tested — it is prepared to hand over governance of the territory to any Palestinian organization that is agreed upon nationally and regionally. However, it insists it will not disband, and so a formula is required to ensure the organization does not pose a threat to Israeli security or Palestinian unity. Netanyahu also rejects postwar Palestinian Authority governance of Gaza, having declared this year that 'the day after the war in Gaza, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority will be there.' This approach raises the suspicion that by supporting armed militias, Israel is deliberately becoming an agent of chaos whose goal is not necessarily to defeat Hamas but to prolong the war indefinitely, thus helping to ensure Netanyahu's government remains in power, at least until next year's general election. In recent weeks, we have seen demonstrations of spontaneous popular opposition to Hamas, despite a brutal crackdown on such dissent by the organization, with hundreds of demonstrators calling for it to be ousted and the war to end. Considering the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza — recently described during an interview with the BBC by International Committee of the Red Cross President Mirjana Spoljaric as 'worse than hell on Earth' — it is only to be expected that ordinary Gazans, who for nearly two years have been enduring such a hellish situation, would vent their anger against both Israel and Hamas. But the engagement by Israel with clans and militias, and even gangs, has nothing to do with trying to alleviate the suffering of the 2.3 million people of Gaza; it is all about creating a force to counter Hamas, and to undermine the Palestinian Authority and also the Palestine Liberation Organization's position as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. While some clans in Gaza were approached last year with the aim of creating an opposition to Hamas, the Abu Shabab gang is not regarded as a clan but calls itself, according to media reports, an 'antiterror service,' with no clear aims or indication of who it serves. If this is truly the case, Israel is creating a monster that will take a long time to contain once it is let loose, as we have seen with similar situations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. And it will pose a threat, first and foremost, to Israel itself. When countries embark on risky experiments of this kind with nonstate actors, they toy with the idea that they will always be able to control and even disarm them when they have outlived their usefulness. History shows us that in many cases, such groups develop their own sets of interests and revenue streams, not to mention coalitions with like-minded armed groups, sometimes even those they were initially supposed to contain. Meanwhile the country that initially sponsored them tends to lose control of them. Worse still for Israel, since Abu Shabab is depicted on social media in Gaza as 'the Israeli agent' — in other words a traitor, which in the middle of a bitter war is as good as putting a bounty on his head — he has an incentive either to eventually join forces with Hamas, or simply turn on Israel using the weapons it put in his hands. This might be the right time for the Netanyahu government to recognize that there are better ways to undermine extremism and fundamentalism than encouraging civil war. In this case, they begin with ending the killing of innocent civilians, allowing humanitarian aid to reach those that so desperately need it, and then recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. It would be well worth checking this alternative path in place of the one Israel is on. • Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg
Arab News
8 hours ago
- Arab News
We will recognize the State of Palestine soon, Macron tells Asharq News
PARIS: French President Emmanuel Macron pledged, in statements to Asharq News on the sidelines of a meeting with journalists and representatives of Palestinian and Israeli civil society institutions, that his country will recognize the State of Palestine at an upcoming conference that France will organize with Saudi Arabia in New York. In response to a question about whether there are conditions for recognizing the Palestinian state, Macron said: 'There are no conditions. Recognition will take place through a process that includes stopping the war on Gaza, restoring humanitarian access to the Gaza Strip, releasing Israeli hostages, and disarming Hamas.' He stressed: 'This is one package.' Macron indicated that France and Saudi Arabia have agreed to postpone the UN conference they are co-organizing, which was originally scheduled to take place in New York next week. He noted that current developments have prevented Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas from traveling to New York. Macron explained that he had spoken several times with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman on Friday and Palestinian President Abbas, and it was agreed to 'postpone the meeting to a date in the near future.' He also claimed that the president of Indonesia, which currently does not officially recognize Israel, had pledged to do so if France recognizes the State of Palestine. Macron emphasized 'the need for maintaining this dynamic.' The International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, scheduled to be held in New York from June 17-20 and co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France, outlined in its paper a commitment to the 'two-state solution' as the foundational reference. The paper defines a timeline for implementation, outlines the practical obligations of all parties involved, and calls for the establishment of international mechanisms to ensure the continuity of the process. Asharq News obtained a copy of the paper, which asserts that the implementation of the two-state solution must proceed regardless of local or regional developments. It ensures the full recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a political solution that upholds people's rights and responds to their aspirations for peace and security. The paper highlights that the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks and the war on Gaza have led to an unprecedented escalation in violence and casualties, resulting in the most severe humanitarian crisis to date, widespread destruction, and immense suffering for civilians on both sides, including detainees, their families, and residents of Gaza. It further confirms that settlement activities pose a threat to the two-state solution, which it states is the only path to achieving a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the region. The paper notes that the settlement activities undermine regional and international peace, security, and prosperity. According to the paper, the conference aims to alter the current course by building on national, regional, and international initiatives and adopting concrete measures to uphold international law. The conference will also focus on advancing a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace that ensures security for all the people of the region and fosters regional integration. The conference reaffirms the international community's unwavering commitment to a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian cause and the two-state solution, highlighting the urgent need to act in pursuit of these objectives.
