Israeli officials have recently doubled down on their refusal to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor, a narrow buffer zone along the Gaza-Egypt border that includes the Rafah crossing, the only exit from Gaza not under Israeli control.
Despite Cairo’s demands for withdrawal, citing the 1979 Camp David Peace Treaty, Israeli forces have remained stationed in the corridor since their occupation of the area in May 2024.
The latest statement came from Israeli Defence Minister Yisrael Katz in late February, declaring that the corridor would remain a “buffer zone, just as it is on the borders with Lebanon and Syria,” adding that Israel must “counter the smuggling of ammunition and weapons”.
Israeli media, citing unnamed officials, also reported that “Israel will not withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor as promised… We will not leave the corridor”.
Meanwhile, Israeli Energy Minister Eli Cohen outlined three conditions for withdrawal: the return of Israeli hostages, the removal of Hamas from Gaza, and the complete demilitarisation of the enclave.
Israel’s military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor is “a clear violation of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and puts it at serious risk”, Mohamed Mehran, professor of international law and a member of both the American and European societies of international law, told The New Arab.
“The treaty and its security annexes explicitly regulate the military presence along the border, including in the Philadelphi Corridor,” he said, explaining that Israel’s deployment in the area constitutes “a blatant breach” of these regulations, which limit the presence of armed forces near the border.
Major General Salem Mohamed Nasr, former head of reconnaissance and a veteran of the 1973 October War, agrees that the Israeli presence “violates the treaty,” reiterating that the agreement prohibits “armoured forces in Zone D, which extends two to four kilometres on either side of the border”. However, Nasr argued that Israel’s military presence in the corridor is strategically insignificant.
“It has no real military value. Israel will not risk attacking Egypt and jeopardising the peace treaty,” he said. “If it ever did, we wouldn’t need the treaty anymore and would act in line with our national security interests.”
Mehran, however, believes that Egypt should not take the treaty violation lightly.
“Egypt has diplomatic and legal mechanisms to pressure Israel into withdrawing, from bilateral negotiations to international arbitration and escalation through global diplomatic channels,” he said.
|
|
Egypt’s response: Diplomacy or escalation?
The legal framework of the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty offers Egypt options to challenge Israel’s actions, Mehran noted. Article VII stipulates that disputes must be resolved through negotiation, conciliation, or arbitration, giving Egypt grounds to formally invoke the mechanism and compel Israel to comply.
Beyond legal avenues, Mehran suggested that Egypt could take the issue to the UN Security Council, though he acknowledged that an American veto would likely block any meaningful action.
“An alternative is seeking a UN General Assembly resolution supporting Egypt’s position,” he said.
He added that Egypt could also rally regional backing through an Arab League resolution condemning Israel’s violations and activating the Arab Joint Defence Agreement to apply collective pressure.
Nasr believes that Israel’s occupation of the corridor is not aimed at Egypt, but rather at Palestinians.
“This is about restricting Palestinian movement, not about Egypt,” he argued. “Keeping control over the corridor denies Palestinians their only exit that is not controlled by Israel.”
But Egyptian lawyer and political analyst Ziad Al-Alimy argues that Israel is using the corridor as a bargaining chip, and that Egypt is being “drawn into the game”.
“Israel is using its presence there as leverage in negotiations with Hamas, while Egypt is the one handling these talks behind the scenes,” Al-Alimy told The New Arab.
He believes Egypt sees Gaza as a security buffer that protects Egypt from Israeli expansionism, no matter which government is in power.
“For Egypt, Gaza is a first line of defence,” he explained. “That’s why Cairo often ignores some of the cross-border activity. Egypt sees Hamas as a reconnaissance force against Israel.”
A push for Egyptian control over Gaza?
Al-Alimy pointed out that both Israel and the US, especially during the Trump administration, have pressured Egypt to assume administrative control over Gaza.
“The goal is to turn Egypt into the de facto governing authority of Gaza, like the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank,” he said. “That would force Egypt into direct clashes with Palestinian factions, many of whom have long-standing ties with Egyptian intelligence.”
But he dismissed the idea that Egypt would ever agree to absorb Palestinian refugees.
“Trump floated the idea of moving Palestinians to Egypt as a scare tactic for a weaker deal,” he said. “But that’s impossible. If Palestinians were moved to the border, they would continue launching attacks, creating a situation like Lebanon in the 1980s, which could lead to a direct war with Egypt.”
Even spreading Palestinian refugees across Egypt would be “a national security nightmare,” he argued.
“A significant number of them are with Hamas who are a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt sees as major internal threat,” he said. “These are people with combat experience, urban warfare skills, and access to arms. Any instability in Egypt would make them a serious risk. Even if the political leadership agreed to it, the military would reject it outright.”
Al-Alimy believes Egypt still has options to push back against Israel’s presence in the corridor.
“Cairo can use Palestinian leverage to pressure Israel to withdraw,” he said, “and if the situation escalates, Egypt could threaten the peace treaty, file UN complaints, and launch international campaigns, things [the government] should have done from day one.”
He also pointed to Egypt’s vote against the US resolution on Ukraine at the UN, despite most Arab states supporting it, as a tactical move to pressure Washington and Tel Aviv over the ceasefire talks and the Philadelphi Corridor.
“This is not about Russia or Ukraine,” he argued. “It’s all about America.”
He also sees Cairo’s decision to postpone Sisi’s visit to Washington as part of a broader strategy.
“They knew that if Sisi went, he’d be under enormous pressure,” he said. “I believe this was not just a presidential decision, but also a military one. Both moves were strong, strategic, and highly calculated.”
|
|
Where does this leave Egypt and Israel?
While Egypt continues to navigate a tense diplomatic standoff, Nasr is adamant that Israel’s military concerns are unfounded.
“We have the right to arm ourselves and continuously introduce new advanced weaponry into our forces,” Nasr said. “But multinational forces monitor troop levels on both sides of the border. If there were any violations, they would report them.”
As tensions persist, Al-Alimy warns that the entire region is “in jeopardy of an outbreak of war”.
“Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and the US, are engaged in a strategy of brinkmanship,” he said. “They’re pushing for the maximum gains while risking an all-out war at any moment.”
This article is published in collaboration with Egab.
