������Ƶ

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