Follow us on social

Why does Egypt fear evacuating Gaza?

Why does Egypt fear evacuating Gaza?

Cairo worries that, instead of saving lives, a 'humanitarian corridor' could be a pretense to permanently exile Palestinians

Reporting | Middle East

UPDATE 10/13: The Israeli army ordered the evacuation of the entire north half of Gaza, home to 1 million people, on Thursday night. The United Nations said that the evacuation order — which originally gave Palestinians only 24 hours to leave — was impossible to fulfill, and the Norwegian Refugee Council argued that Israel’s plans amount to “to the war crime of forcible transfer” of civilians.

Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said in a speech late on Thursday that Egypt was committed to providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, but that Palestinians must “remain on their land” because their removal from Gaza would bring “the elimination of the [Palestinian] cause.” He had earlier claimed that “Egypt will not allow the Palestinian cause to be settled at the expense of other parties.”


The Biden administration is working to set up a “humanitarian corridor” for Palestinian civilians in Gaza to flee to Egypt, but Cairo is signaling that it will not accept a solution that forces Palestinians to leave Gaza without any hope of return.

Reuters reported on Wednesday that Egypt rejected the idea of evacuations in order to protect Palestinians’ right to stay on their land. A chorus of Egyptian officials, media personalities, and religious authorities have stated over the past two days — with almost exactly the same wording — that Egypt will not tolerate Israel pushing Palestinians into Egypt at the expense of “Egyptian sovereignty.”

Speaking anonymously to Cairo News, high-level officials denounced the “calls for a mass exodus” from “some parties,” which are a “proxy for emptying the [Gaza] Strip of its inhabitants and liquidating the Palestinian issue itself.” The statement seemed aimed at Israeli member of parliament Ariel Kallner, who called for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza this week.

Egypt’s prestigious Al-Azhar seminary, meanwhile, put out a statement on Wednesday urging Palestinians to remain “steadfast,” because “leaving your land is the death of your cause and will cause the disappearance of your land forever.”

Israel, reeling from the murder of hundreds of Israeli civilians by Hamas guerrillas, has begun an intense retribution campaign against Gaza, the Palestinian enclave ruled by Hamas. The Israeli military has cut off food, water, and electricity to Gaza while bombing the area more intensely than ever before.

Hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, and Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is widely expected to launch a ground invasion.

International calls for a “humanitarian corridor” have mounted as food rations dry up and hospitals run low on vital supplies. However, different parties have very different visions in mind. The World Health Organization is demanding that medicine be allowed into Gaza, while the Biden administration has apparently focused on evacuating civilians out of Gaza.

It is unclear whether the Biden administration would pressure Israel to allow Palestinians to return to Gaza after the war is over. U.S. officials have publicly called on Israel to respect the laws of war.

The situation resembles the siege of Karabakh over the past few months. Azerbaijani authorities had cut off food supplies to the Armenian enclave of Karabakh for several months, leading to mass starvation. Last month, the Azerbaijani military began a campaign to retake Karabakh, while advertising a “humanitarian corridor” — in those exact words — for locals to flee to Armenia.

Almost the entire population of Karabakh fled and are unlikely to return. Many critics, from Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan to prominent American columnists, have called the emptying of Karabakh an act of ethnic cleansing.

Israeli politicians have indicated that they prefer a similar solution in Gaza, and perhaps the entire Palestinian territories. The idea of solving the Palestinian issue through “population transfer” has grown more popular with the Israeli public over the past few years. Bezalel Smotrich, the Israeli minister in charge of the West Bank, once proposed a “Decisive Plan” that would give Palestinians a choice between accepting permanent Israeli rule or emigrating.

Kallner, the Israeli member of parliament, wrote on social media that Israel should have “one goal: Nakba! A Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of 48. Nakba in Gaza and Nakba to anyone who dares to join!”

The Nakba refers to the mass exile of Palestinians during the Israeli war of independence in 1948. Around 700,000 people left their homes, with many fleeing to Gaza, then under Egyptian control.

Egypt relinquished its claim to Gaza in the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty of 1978. The treaty, known as the Camp David Accords, called for Israel to establish Palestinian self-rule in the territory instead. Jordan agreed to a similar principle in the 1980s, giving up its claims on the West Bank in favor of the Palestinian independence movement.

Jordanian leaders often say that their goal was to prevent Israel from trying to create an “alternative [Palestinian] homeland” on Jordanian soil. Khaled el Gendy, an official with Egypt’s ministry of religion, brought up the same specter in a Tuesday speech.

“Now some calls have appeared to push the Palestinians out of their land and put them into the Sinai to create an alternative homeland,” he said, referring to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula. “This cannot happen, ever.”

The Israeli ambassador in Cairo stated on social media that Israel has no designs on taking the Sinai from Egypt.

Of course, it is possible to evacuate civilians from Gaza without Egypt's involvement. Israeli authorities could allow Palestinians to travel from Gaza to the West Bank — or they could set up refugee camps within Israel proper. Such a solution would assuage concerns that Israel plans to permanently depopulate Gaza.

However, Israel does not appear interested in taking in Palestinian refugees. All checkpoints controlling access to the West Bank are also under complete lockdown.


FILE PHOTO: A view shows houses and buildings destroyed by Israeli strikes in Gaza City, October 10, 2023. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem/File Photo

Reporting | Middle East
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.