As Israel continues to threaten the launch of a full-blown assault on Rafah, Egypt has garnered much criticism over media reports that it's preparing a walled enclosure on its border to house any Palestinians displaced by a military offensive.
Much of that criticism appears overblown as Egypt remains fiercely opposed to forced expulsion and continues to press Israel to halt its invasion. The country has also been pragmatically preparing for a potential breach of its border and working out logistics to assist Palestinians in need.
In response to media reports about border preparations last week, Diaa Rashwan, head of Egypt’s State Information Service (SIS), said forced or voluntary displacement of Palestinians would represent "a definite liquidation of the Palestinian cause and a direct threat to Egyptian sovereignty and national security."
Visuals released by monitoring and activist groups showed heavy construction on the Egyptian side of the Rafah crossing, including concrete barriers and levelling of land. But Cairo’s top diplomat rebuffed allegations that Egypt was building a "contingency plan" to host displaced Palestinians.
"We will not deal with the hypothetical. And we will continue to call upon all our friends, all of those who understand the complexities and the dangers associated with it, to not only provide support by rhetoric, but to indicate clearly that there will be consequences for any form of displacement," said Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.
Ground realities seem to agree. Cairo is prioritising the construction of a planned "logistics zone" in Rafah to facilitate crucial aid. The imperative for health and humanitarian assistance appears greater than ever as the World Health Organization (WHO) chief calls Gaza a "death zone."
Israel’s planned assault on Rafah – home to some 1.4 million internally displaced Palestinians – has also drawn excessive scrutiny to Cairo’s border fortifications, which have been in a state of constant evolution for months.
Days after Israel launched its Gaza offensive in October, Cairo categorically rejected any prospects of "safe corridors" for Palestinians forced to flee the enclave. That position remains unchanged as Egypt warns Western and Arab counterparts over disastrous "consequences" from any form of forced displacement, and declares an Israeli assault on Rafah a hard-set "redline."
Egypt’s opposition to an Israeli ground offensive carries significant merit for Palestinian liberties. Based on Israel’s well-documented history of systemic aggression and expulsion, it may never allow forcefully displaced Palestinians to return to their homes.
One critical precedent is the horrors of the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe), in which 700,000 Palestinians fled or were forced out of their homes. Regional assurances on an immediate return never materialised.
The present exodus scenario is thus completely unacceptable to Egypt as well as scores of other nations, including Türkiye, which opposes attempts to depopulate Gaza and has coordinated closely with Cairo to prevent the Rafah assault altogether.
Any form of mass displacement could easily assume permanence, violate the 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty, and effectively jeopardise the lifeblood of the Palestinian resistance: an undeniable right to statehood.
Cairo has been a fixture in critical ceasefire talks and remains deeply sceptical of Israeli assurances against cross-border refugee spillovers. Earlier this month, Egypt pressed its diplomatic leverage with the US, Israel and Qatar to revive fraught talks and continues to coordinate expectations for a possible truce.
Though the process has yet to yield fruit, Cairo’s push for a compromise helps negate the idea that it supports forced displacement altogether. If the end goal was to absorb displaced Palestinians at the border, it makes little sense for Egypt to counter forced displacement risks and reject a full-scale Israeli ground offensive.
At the International Court of Justice (ICJ) this week, Egypt sharply criticised Israel’s policies of mass displacement, collective punishment, and indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, citing the impending attack on Rafah as glaring evidence of forced expulsion.
These developments call a fundamental assumption into question: that Egypt appears to build a so-called "buffer-zone" for Palestinians on its side of the border. Such construction would imply acceptance of the consequences of a possible Israeli onslaught on Rafah.
Egypt remains fiercely opposed to forced displacement of Palestinians, and refuses to relent in its campaign to stop Israel’s Rafah offensive. All this puts a reality check on allegations that Egypt has resigned itself to the consequences of the assault.
That is a marked departure from Egypt’s stern warnings to Western officials, including to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, that forcing Gazans into Sinai would be completely unacceptable.
Moreover, Cairo appears unwilling to buy into Israeli assurances against mass displacement. In recent days, Netanyahu redoubled his calls for a ground invasion of Rafah, defied international pressure, and struggled to convince Washington of any credible plan to ensure the safety of civilians in the city.
Speaking to Reuters, an Israeli defence official stated that Palestinians would not be allowed to return north, contradicting Tel Aviv’s official position and challenging possibilities of movement and assistance within the enclave – a stated consideration for Cairo.
Long before Israel’s onslaught on Gaza gathered pace, Egypt’s border area already had barriers and a buffer zone. This construction predates the current crisis, making it difficult to link border area developments as a knee-jerk reaction to the possible mass ejection of Palestinians.
Taken together, Egypt remains fiercely opposed to forced displacement of Palestinians, and refuses to relent in its campaign to stop Israel’s Rafah offensive. All this puts a reality check on allegations that Egypt has resigned itself to the consequences of the assault.
The author, Hannan Hussain, is an international affairs specialist and author. He was a Fulbright Scholar of international security at the University of Maryland, and has consulted for the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy in Washington. Hussain's work has been published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, and the Express Tribune (partner of the International New York Times).
Disclaimer: The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT Afrika.
➤Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel for more stories.
