-Analysis-
CAIRO — Amid the ongoing Israeli aggression on Gaza, Hebrew-language media outlets are circulating reports of Israeli military movements toward the border axis between Gaza and Egypt.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put an exclamation point on these reports in a Dec. 30 press conference where he gave official voice to the Occupation’s intention to take control of the 14 kilometer (8.7 miles) stretch of land that runs along the Egypt-Gaza border.
“The Philadelphi Corridor — or to put it more correctly, the southern stoppage point [of Gaza] — must be in our hands. It must be shut. It is clear that any other arrangement would not ensure the demilitarization that we seek,” Netanyahu said.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
On the Egyptian side, the matter has been shrouded in mystery. Egyptian officials have so far refrained from commenting, while Al-Qahera news channel cited informed Egyptian sources as denying that Israel had initiated a ground operation starting from the Karem Abu Salem crossing toward the Philadelphi Corridor, on the border between Gaza and Egypt.
Other state-affiliated Egyptian media outlets suggested that Israel’s purported motive for presence in the border area is to prevent Hamas leaders from using tunnels to escape from Gaza into Egypt, with the outlets denying the existence of tunnels in the same breath.
By inviting retired military personnel with close ties to the authorities onto their shows, these outlets have argued that the Philadelphi Corridor is Palestinian, not Egyptian, territory and thus Israel’s occupation of the area would not encroach upon Egyptian sovereignty. However, they also acknowledge that such an occurrence, if it were to happen, would constitute a violation of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.
The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported that Israel and Egypt have been actively negotiating the future of the Philadelphi corridor, with Israel demanding that sensors be installed along the narrow slice of land controlled by Egypt that would notify Israeli officials if the Corridor is being used to compromise the border.
Political sources who spoke to Mada Masr indicated that the Israeli threat to take control of the corridor poses a risk to Egypt’s national security and jeopardizes the peace treaty between the two countries. They perceive it as an attempt to force Egypt to adopt a definitive position regarding Israel’s developing attack on the Gaza Strip.
What is the Philadelphi Corridor?
The Philadelphi Corridor is a narrow passage on the Palestinian side adjacent to the border with Egypt, dividing the city of Rafah into two parts: Egyptian Rafah and Palestinian Rafah. Spanning a length of 14 km, the corridor starts from the south at the Karem Abu Salem crossing and ends in the north at the Mediterranean coast.
The corridor was defined on the map by the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement and has since been subject to the security framework outlined in that treaty. The peace agreement divided the Sinai Peninsula into 3 zones, each allowing a certain level of armament. Zone A is in western Sinai and is adjacent to the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Suez, Zone B in central Sinai and Zone C in eastern Sinai, adjacent to the Gulf of Aqaba and the border strip with Gaza. Egyptian security presence in Zone C is limited to a police rather than military force. To the east of the Sinai Peninsula, within Gaza, lies Zone D, designated as a buffer zone that is subject to an armament level outlined in the peace treaty under Israel’s military control.
The Gaza Strip remained under Israeli occupation until 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew. As part of the arrangements for this withdrawal, Israel and Egypt signed the Agreed Arrangements Regarding the Deployment of a Designated Force of Border Guards along the Border in the Rafah Area, known as the Philadelphi Accord. The agreement referred to Zone D as the Philadelphi Corridor, a name arbitrarily chosen by Israel, according to Reuters. With this agreement, control of the corridor was transferred to the Egyptian side and Egypt was allowed, for the first time since the peace treaty, to deploy 750 lightly armed Border Guard soldiers on the Egyptian side of the border in Rafah.
Some Israeli politicians considered the accord a de facto alteration to the peace treaty with Egypt
Their mission entailed guarding and monitoring the corridor from the Egyptian side, as the Egyptian-Gaza border is the only border that the Israeli military does not directly control, unlike the rest of the borders of the strip. The agreement defined the role of the Egyptian forces as dedicated to counterterrorism and border infiltration prevention.
The Philadelphi Accord stipulated that it is not an amendment to the provisions of the peace treaty with Israel, meaning that Zone D, or the Philadelphi Corridor, and Zone C, in Sinai, remain demilitarized zones.
Given that the agreement conceded Israeli control over Gaza’s borders, it faced strong objections within Knesset political circles. Some Israeli politicians considered the accord a de facto alteration to the peace treaty with Egypt regarding military presence in Zone C, despite its explicit declaration that it would not entail any modifications. This argument gained traction and the Knesset adopted the position that, as the accord represented an amendment to the peace treaty, it required parliamentary approval in order to come into effect, setting off a dispute between the executive, headed by Ariel Sharon at the time, and legislature of the Israeli government.
“Bridge of terror”
The dispute evolved from political circles to the judiciary. Ultimately, judicial authorities concluded that the agreement did not constitute an amendment to the peace treaty and therefore the government was not required to seek the approval of the Knesset, leading to the formal endorsement of the agreement.
In 2007, two years after the Philadelphi Accord was put into effect, there was a significant shift in the political and security landscape of the Gaza Strip. Hamas assumed complete control over the territory, including the border area and the Philadelphi Corridor bordering Sinai.
This power shift and subsequent imposition of a siege saw Hamas build out an extensive tunnel trade network, while Israel claimed that Gaza’s resistance movements were acquiring weapons through these tunnels. Concurrently, within Israel, there were growing calls for the reassertion of control over the corridor, particularly as Palestinians from Gaza frequently crossed into Egyptian cities in North Sinai for trade purposes.
During the 2009 Israeli military aggression on Gaza, the Occupation announced its intention to redeploy its military along the Philadelphi Corridor to counter trans-border smuggling operations through tunnels, which did not take place. However, the corridor was heavily bombarded with bunker-buster bombs that detonated underground. Occupation forces dropped leaflets on residents living adjacent to the corridor in Palestinian Rafah, demanding that they evacuate, and, subsequently, some houses were targeted.
Talk of the corridor resurfaced during the eight-day 2012 military aggression on Gaza, with the Jerusalem Post describing it as a “bridge of terror” that enabled Hamas to acquire weapons, and it reemerged again during the 2021 military aggression on Gaza.
Amid the ongoing genocidal war, there has been a resurgence in discussions about the Philadelphi Corridor
Prior to October 7, Egypt separated Sinai from the Gaza Strip with two border walls. One wall is an extension of the smart wall that Israel began constructing around the strip in 2018, and it extends from the north by the Mediterranean Sea to the Erez crossing in the east and continues south along the border. It separates the peninsula from the Gaza envelope settlements and reaches the Karem Abu Salem crossing in the west, on the border with Egypt.
From this point, which marks the start of the Philadelphi Corridor, Egypt completed the construction of the wall along its borders, extending it to the Mediterranean Sea west of the strip. The wall was specifically designed to counter tunnel-digging operations, standing six meters above ground and another 6 meters below and equipped with a network of radar and surveillance sensors.
The second wall is a concrete wall extending along the Egyptian border with the Gaza Strip, above ground, which stands about six meters high and is equipped with monitoring towers.
Behind the second wall, Egypt has established a buffer zone in Egyptian Rafah since 2014, extending five km in depth and 14 km in length along the border. Only military units and police forces stationed at the Border Guard outpost in the Imam Ali neighborhood are present in the buffer zone.
Now, amid the ongoing genocidal war that Israel has been waging on Gaza for nearly three months, there has been a resurgence in discussions about the Philadelphi Corridor, surpassing the attention the corridor has received in previous aggressions.
Further Fortifications
On the Egyptian side opposite the Philadelphi Corridor, Egypt fortified its borders in November with a graded sand barrier and placed concrete barriers on top of it, prohibiting entry to the buffer zone. Concurrent with the completion of the barrier construction, elders from tribes in North Sinai circulated messages reportedly originating from military leaders, urging tribe members to refrain from venturing within a distance of 4 km near the border in areas outside the buffer zone. They emphasized that they would not intercede should the military apprehend any individuals found in violation of these instructions.
These instructions were confirmed by a tribal source in Sheikh Zuwayed who spoke to Mada Masr, stating that the elders of border villages such as Nagaa Shabana, Ajra, Mahdiya, Berth, and Km17 Salah Eddin have asked residents not to venture near the border in the coming period.
Meanwhile, Israeli discussions regarding the Philadelphi Corridor continued in various forms. Two weeks ago, the Israel Broadcasting Authority announced that Egypt had declined an Israeli request to deploy joint forces along the corridor. The authority stated that “the Israeli request came out of concerns about the presence of Hamas infrastructure in the area east of Rafah, extending to the Philadelphi Corridor.” Egypt, in response, affirmed that “the area is devoid of aany tunnels.”
However, the Israeli desire resurfaced once again last week in various reports indicating the possibility of the military taking unilateral action and deploying its forces to the corridor without coordination with Egypt.
According to the Israeli I24 news website, the Philadelphi Corridor has become a smuggling route for Hamas. The website criticized the Israeli military for not taking sufficient action to counter this threat and claimed that the southern command of the Israeli military is developing a plan to address the situation in the corridor to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons. The website also reported that Egypt cautioned against any operations in the area that might lead to Palestinians being displaced toward Egyptian territories.
I24 also cited a Walla news portal report stating that there are trilateral talks between Israel, Egypt, and the United States to formulate a security solution regarding the Philadelphi Corridor.
Ambiguous scene
Hassan Abu Talib, a senior researcher at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, told Mada Masr that Egypt is facing a “dubious” scene, referring to what was announced by the Walla news portal last Monday. The website claimed tanks were heading toward the Philadelphi Corridor from the Karm Abu Salem crossing. Abu Talib says that while Egypt has indirectly denied the existence of these military movements, these denials stand in contrast to Israel’s repeated announcements that it is conducting air raids in the south of Gaza close to the border with Rafah. In the last two weeks, Abu Talib gives as an example, Israel has announced that it has conducted several bombings near the Rafah crossing.
Israel tends to rely on aerial strikes and is capable of reaching any location by air.
Abu Talib emphasizes the importance of determining the scale of a potential Israeli military incursion into the corridor: “Is it going to be one tank, two tanks, or 20?” The magnitude of military activity would indicate the potential challenges military movement in the area could pose for Egypt. Until this moment, according to Abu Talib, nothing has happened to confirm that a major military operation is being carried out by Israel in the corridor.
Abu Taleb notes that Israel tends to rely on aerial strikes and is capable of reaching any location by air. As for ground movements, there is no evidence to support a major ground operation, “although one or a few tanks might enter and bombard some buildings along the border, it is too early to conclude whether there has been a significant change in Israel’s operations on the ground,” he says.
However, if Israeli tanks “enter this area in large numbers and approach the Egyptian-Palestinian border near the Philadelphi Corridor, it would constitute a major violation of the peace treaty,” Abu Talib adds, noting that Egypt has reportedly cautioned Israel against such actions in this area, citing concerns over Egyptian national security. These warnings from Egypt have undoubtedly been conveyed to the United States as the third party to the treaty, according to Abu Talib, who continues to say that there are indications that the US is emphasizing the importance of Israel adhering to its commitments in this regard.
Embarrassing Egypt
In contrast to this view, Ayman al-Raqab, a professor of political science at Al-Quds University, argues that the Philadelphi Corridor is Palestinian territory and, therefore, the Occupation does not require permission from Egypt to occupy it. Despite the anticipation of a significant intervention from Egypt in what he calls “Palestinian expectations,” Raqab asserts that “there is no longer a place for emotional takes in this world”. He believes that highlighting the issue in Palestinian news outlets may serve the purpose of shaming Egypt to take action, especially since Egypt previously claimed ownership of the corridor during discussions surrounding the delineation of maritime borders between Egypt and Palestine in 2021.
Raqab refers to what was reported by Al-Quds news network last Saturday citing undisclosed sources that were not identified by country, regarding the Israeli military notifying Egypt of its intention to occupy the Philadelphi Corridor and its demand for the evacuation of Egyptian soldiers from the area. The news network, which Raqab describes as Hamas-affiliated, further claimed that Israel informed Egypt that the military operation in the area would continue regardless of whether Egypt accepted or rejected it. These reports were denied by Egyptian media outlets.
However, the need for Israel to agree on new security arrangements for the corridor, should it choose to occupy the area, remains undisputed. Saeed Okasha, an Israeli affairs expert for the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, argues that any Israeli movement or presence in the corridor must be official and declared. He further asserts that “unexpected events are always a possibility and border incidents do occur from both sides, but military movements, tank relocations, and troop deployments will not go unnoticed.”
At present, there is no confirmation of Israel’s military presence in the area, from either the Israeli or Egyptian side, Okasha says. However, such presence is not governed by the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Rather, it is subject to a series of bilateral security and political agreements signed between Egypt, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority. These agreements underwent significant changes after Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, following Israel’s withdrawal from the area in 2005.
In his interview with Al Jazeera new channel, Brigadier-General Samir Ragheb, the head of the Arab Foundation for Development and Strategic Studies, said that “the amendment of the military annex and its attachments is done with the approval of both parties in the Military Joint Committee” between Egypt and Israel. He also mentioned that the Israeli side would be required to establish a new agreement with Egypt to avoid violating the peace treaty. This agreement would be reached through the Joint Military Committee, upon the request of either party. Once approved, the agreement would be implemented without the need for parliamentary approval or a sovereign decision, as has been the case in the past decade.
According to Ragheb, Israel agreed to grant 46 Egyptian battalions entry in Zone C during Egypt’s fight against the Province of Sinai and to modify personnel within the Border Guard in Rafah three times. The latest adjustment took place in 2021, when Egypt announced the amendment of the security agreement with Israel and an increase in the number and capabilities of the Egyptian Border Guard in Rafah following a meeting of the Joint Military Committee.
Any form of military movement toward the Egyptian border is dangerous.
With Israel’s consent, Egyptian tanks have been deployed to the border, and F-16 fighter jets have flown along its borders. These actions typically contravene the provisions of the peace treaty. However, exceptions were made when Abdel Fattah al-Sisi assumed the head of the Military Intelligence Directorate.”Reciprocity is observed in these matters,” Ragheb says.
Abu Talib dismisses the possibility of Israel occupying the area, for the time being. He argues that Israel’s military strategy since the start of its aggression on Gaza on October 7 has been costly. This includes aerial and ground operations aimed at occupying certain sites in the strip. However, Israel has not achieved its objectives in the war, as it has failed to eliminate Hamas or its leadership or even protect itself from attacks.
According to Abu Talib, Egypt’s stance on this matter is clear: any form of military movement toward the Egyptian border is dangerous. It necessitates a stronger position, one that extends beyond Egypt’s diplomatic efforts. “We have sent this message to the Americans and Europeans more than once,” says Abu Talib. “President Sisi has repeatedly stated that any development pushing the Palestinians toward Egypt or our borders would result in the collapse of the security situation in the region, which means the end of the peace treaty with Israel.”