Egypt remains crucial to any Gaza ceasefire deal

Tensions between Egypt and Israel have persisted since the start of the latter’s military operation in Rafah in the southernmost part of the Gaza Strip. Israel has taken control of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing and Egypt has threatened multiple times to completely withdraw from its mediation role in the negotiations toward a ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Although it is generally believed that it would be “difficult” for Egypt to withdraw from its mediation role, as Israel “prefers” Egypt over Qatar as a mediator, Israel’s violent actions in Gaza, which anger everyone, drive Cairo to repeatedly threaten to withdraw. The important truth remains that no one can take over Egypt’s role, given that it is the only gateway to the world for Gaza, besides Israel.
Egypt’s threats to withdraw, following what it has deemed to be misinformation and punitive actions against Egypt for its principled support of the Palestinian people, have had a significant impact. Israel has tried to mitigate Egyptian anger, with Israeli army spokesman Daniel Hagari speaking positively about Egypt.
No analysts foresee Egypt actually withdrawing from its mediation role despite its threats. However, Cairo sends a message to all parties that it will maintain its position and will react if Israel oversteps. Egypt’s role in mediating the ceasefire and the release of hostages from Gaza and Israeli prisoners was established due to repeated demands from Israel and the US for it to take on this role.
Egypt’s involvement is crucial as it borders Gaza at the Rafah crossing, making it an essential part of any future arrangements and a stabilizing factor in the region. Ultimately, Israel will strive to ease its dealings with Egypt. Tel Aviv will not relinquish Egyptian mediation and prefers it over Qatari mediation due to the strategic relations between the two countries.
Egyptian officials have noted that certain parties have been playing a game of blaming mediators — Qatari at times and Egyptian at others — accusing them of bias to delay and avoid making decisive decisions regarding the ceasefire deal and the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. This tactic is aimed at preserving the political interests of these parties and addressing the major internal political crises they face.
The long-standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been a central issue in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Historically, Egypt has played a major role as a key mediator, attempting to broker peace and manage ceasefires, especially between Israel and Hamas. However, the repeated failure to reach a permanent agreement raises questions about Egypt’s ability and willingness to continue these efforts.
Does Egypt still have the leverage to pressure the parties involved? What are the potential impacts on Egypt if no agreement is reached? And are there other parties capable of taking over Egypt’s role?
Egypt has played a vital role in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians since the Camp David Accords in 1978, which led to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty in 1979. However, Egyptian mediation in the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza has not resulted in a lasting agreement. The truces mediated by Egypt have often been temporary, with violence quickly resuming. This continuous failure could lead to frustration for the Egyptian government, as it might see its efforts as unfruitful.
Despite the challenges, Egypt still possesses several tools to pressure the conflicting parties. One of the most prominent is control over the Rafah crossing, which is the lifeline for Gaza’s residents. Egypt can regulate the movement of goods and people, giving it significant leverage over Hamas. By opening or closing the crossing, Egypt can exert economic and humanitarian pressure on Gaza’s government. Despite its current closure after Israeli forces occupied the Philadelphi Corridor, the Rafah crossing retains its importance.

Egypt has played a vital role in mediating between Israel and the Palestinians since the Camp David Accords in 1978.

Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy

Additionally, security relations between Egypt and Israel, including security and intelligence cooperation, enhance Cairo’s ability to influence Israeli policies. This cooperation includes counterterrorism efforts in Sinai, which Israel considers part of its security strategy.
If no agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, there could be significant regional and Egyptian repercussions. The first of these impacts would be on internal stability. Continued conflict without resolution can increase tensions on Egypt’s border with Gaza, heightening the likelihood of terrorist infiltration into Sinai and escalating security tensions. Economic and humanitarian pressure due to instability in Gaza could lead to a flow of refugees into Egypt, placing additional strain on an already challenged Egyptian economy.
Cairo understands that failure to make progress could weaken its position as a key mediator in the conflict, reducing its influence in regional and international politics.
If Egypt’s role diminishes, other regional and international players might attempt to fill the void. Qatar and Turkiye have shown an interest in mediating between Hamas and Israel, leveraging their influence and relationships in the region. Qatar has strong ties with Hamas and provides significant financial aid to Gaza, giving it leverage in the sector. Doha might try to use this influence to mediate negotiations. Turkiye seeks to enhance its role in the region by supporting various Palestinian factions. However, it may face challenges due to geopolitical tensions with some Arab states and Israel.
There is a question of whether Israel or Hamas would try to exploit the situation to embarrass or pressure the Egyptian regime. For Israel, maintaining a stable relationship with Cairo is crucial for its security cooperation and for regional stability. Deliberate attempts to undermine Egypt’s efforts could jeopardize these strategic interests.
On the other hand, Hamas, which relies on Egyptian mediation to ease the Gaza blockade, has little to gain from excessively pressuring Cairo. Nonetheless, internal Palestinian politics and external influences could lead to unpredictable actions by the group.
If Egypt continues its mediation efforts, potential progress could be made by leveraging its security and political influence. It might attempt to achieve gradual progress in negotiations, leading to a long-term truce or even a permanent agreement. Alternatively, achieving minimal cooperation through international collaboration could strengthen Egypt’s role by working with international powers like the US and the EU to exert greater pressure on the conflicting parties.
If Egypt decides to withdraw, the immediate result would likely be increased regional tensions. The absence of Egyptian mediation could lead to an escalation of violence in Gaza and a deterioration of humanitarian conditions, exacerbating regional tensions.
Despite repeated failures to reach a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, Egypt still has the means and capacity to influence the conflicting parties. However, ongoing conflict without a resolution could have serious repercussions for Cairo, affecting its internal stability and international standing. If Egypt’s role diminishes, other countries like Qatar and Turkiye might attempt to fill the gap, though with new complexities.
Achieving lasting peace in the region requires ongoing efforts and international cooperation, with a continued emphasis on Egypt’s importance as a key mediator.

• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy is a critically acclaimed multimedia journalist, writer and columnist who has covered war zones and conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy