The Israeli war on Gaza is more than a humanitarian disaster; it is a geopolitical shockwave whose aftershocks threaten Egypt’s sovereignty, stability, and regional role.
As entire neighbourhoods in Gaza are erased, tens of thousands killed, and hundreds of thousands displaced under siege, the humanitarian tragedy is unfolding alongside a dangerous strategic reality: a Middle East where the logic of force increasingly eclipses diplomacy.
For Cairo, the stakes are nothing short of existential. Israel is pressing for post-war arrangements that could undermine Egypt’s control over Sinai. Washington is urging Egypt to align with a US-led regional order. At the same time, Arab and Islamic public opinion, outraged by events in Gaza, is watching closely. The greatest danger – the forced displacement of Palestinians into Sinai – would not only violate national sovereignty but risk destabilising the country at a moment of deep economic and security challenges.
The current Israeli campaign has crossed thresholds unprecedented in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Entire districts in Gaza have been flattened. UN estimates put the number of dead at over 38,000, while hundreds of thousands face deliberate starvation and disease under siege conditions. This is not collateral damage; it is a sustained strategy of destruction and demographic engineering that many around the world recognise as a genocide unfolding in real time.
For Egypt, this brutality is not a distant outrage but a direct strategic threat. Any large-scale displacement of Palestinians into Sinai would constitute a permanent breach of sovereignty, create a refugee crisis without precedent in Egypt’s modern history, and serve Israel’s aim of exporting the Gaza problem to its neighbour. Such a scenario would destabilise North Sinai and could ignite political unrest nationwide.
Israel’s talk of “voluntary migration” from Gaza is neither accidental nor unprecedented. Leaked policy papers, ministerial statements, and military actions all point to a strategy of making Gaza unlivable to push Palestinians into permanent exile.
This is a modern extension of the displacement logic seen in 1948 and 1967, and Israeli officials have openly discussed resettling Gazans in Egypt’s Sinai or in third countries. The siege of the territory, cutting off food, water, electricity, and medicine, is part of what international law defines as forcible transfer, a grave breach under the Geneva Conventions.
By trying to shift the humanitarian burden onto Egypt, Israel not only seeks to change Gaza’s demographics but also to weaken Egypt’s sovereignty. Accepting such an arrangement would turn Sinai into a pressure valve for Israeli policy, at catastrophic cost to Egypt’s stability.
Since the war began, Cairo has pursued a delicate balance: keeping the Rafah Crossing open for humanitarian aid, mediating between the warring parties, and resisting Israeli and US pressure to accept arrangements that would lock in a post-war reality at Egypt’s expense.
Yet, the longer the war continues, the narrower Egypt’s room for manoeuvre becomes. Public anger at Israeli actions is deep, and any perception of Egyptian complicity would carry political costs. Meanwhile, Israel’s military calculus leaves little space for genuine diplomacy, and Washington’s position is closely aligned with Tel Aviv’s objectives. The risk is that Egypt’s role as a mediator, a central pillar of its regional influence, will erode.
The Gaza war has also become a rallying point for a broad coalition opposed to the US–Israeli axis. Hizbullah’s front in Lebanon remains active, the Houthis have extended the conflict into the Red Sea, and Iran’s regional networks are engaged across multiple fronts. For the first time in decades, the prospect of a direct, multi-front confrontation involving Israel is real.
For Egypt, such escalation carries a double danger: instability on its eastern border and possible military entanglement in conflicts it did not choose. The displacement threat is only one part of the picture; the broader strategic environment is becoming more volatile by the month.
Egypt has resisted external coercion before. In 1956, after nationalising the Suez Canal Cairo faced a tripartite invasion by Britain, France, and Israel, yet it refused to back down, securing a political victory that reshaped Arab nationalism.
In 1973, Egypt’s crossing of the Suez Canal under former president Anwar Al-Sadat shattered Israel’s aura of invincibility and paved the way for peace on Egyptian terms. More recently, Egypt has refused foreign bases on its soil, managed the Gaza situation on its own terms, and maintained control over the pace of normalisation with Israel.
The current displacement threat is a test of similar magnitude: yielding would mean surrendering control over Egypt’s borders and destiny; resisting would affirm a tradition of strategic independence under pressure.
Globally, the Gaza war is part of a pattern in which major powers rely increasingly on coercion rather than negotiation. Washington proclaims that “American deterrence is back,” yet conflicts multiply: the Ukraine war grinds on; Lebanon and Syria face sustained strikes; and tensions over Taiwan intensify.
The lack of effective international pushback emboldens those who believe that force works, at least in the short term. The recent history of Iraq, Libya, and Syria offers a clear warning. Regime-change wars and interventions have replaced authoritarian governments with failed states or even more repressive orders. The result has been prolonged chaos, radicalisation, and the erosion of regional order. Israel’s current strategy risks producing the same outcome in Gaza, with Egypt left to manage the consequences.
The risks are stark: the displacement of the Palestinians into Sinai would cause irreversible demographic and security changes; public anger could translate into political instability; Israeli intransigence and US alignment could marginalise Egypt diplomatically; and multi-front escalation could force costly military commitments.
The Gaza war is unfolding in an international climate where restraint is scarce and diplomacy undervalued, magnifying the dangers for Egypt. In this context, Washington’s “peace through strength” doctrine is less a guarantee of stability than a gamble that risks replacing a fragile status quo with a more dangerous reality, especially for states on the conflict’s front lines.
For Egypt, the imperative is clear: resist reactive choices, safeguard sovereignty, and preserve the possibility, however slim, of a political path forward. Israel’s war may redraw Gaza’s map, but Cairo must ensure it does not redraw Egypt’s as well.
The writer is a lecturer in global studies.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 21 August, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: