Future of Philadelphi Corridor crucial to Gaza ceasefire talks

The Saladin Corridor, as Arabs call it, or the Philadelphi Corridor, as it is known by Israelis, is a narrow strip of land along the border separating the Gaza Strip from Egypt. Despite its small size — it is just 14 km long and 100 meters wide — this corridor is playing a central role in determining the course of war and peace in the region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining the presence of Israeli forces in this area has sparked widespread internal and external controversy. This insistence impacts not only the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also affects regional relations, particularly with Egypt, as well as the US’ mediation role in the conflict.

Netanyahu’s insistence on keeping Israeli forces in the Philadelphi Corridor appears to be a cornerstone of his security vision, political goals and personal interests. He argues that Israel controlling this narrow strip would limit Hamas’ ability to smuggle weapons from Sinai into Gaza, thereby strengthening the group’s military capacity. Netanyahu promotes the idea that this corridor is Hamas’ “lifeline,” which it uses to smuggle weapons and equipment via an extensive tunnel network. He justifies his position by claiming that remaining in the corridor is essential for maintaining Israeli security.

However, some analyses, both inside and outside of Israel, suggest that there are internal political motives behind this decision. Netanyahu faces pressure from his right-wing political allies, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who oppose any security concessions in the ceasefire negotiations, fearing such concessions could undermine the governing coalition. Internal opposition also argues that Netanyahu is using the Philadelphi Corridor issue as a political tool to keep the far right aligned with him and prevent the collapse of his government. More importantly, this stance allows him to remain in power as prime minister, which grants him immunity from facing political and criminal accountability on various charges and accusations.

The presence of Israeli forces in the Philadelphi Corridor is a major obstacle in the ceasefire negotiations with Hamas. The Palestinian movement insists on a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, including the Philadelphi Corridor, arguing that a continued Israeli military presence in this area would reinforce the siege imposed on Gaza. Hamas believes that an Israeli withdrawal from the corridor is a necessary step for achieving calm, beginning the reconstruction of Gaza and allowing displaced people to return to their homes.

A high-ranking Egyptian official commented on Netanyahu’s statements about weapons smuggling through Egypt’s borders, calling them “unrealistic” and accusing Netanyahu of trying to shift the blame for his failure to achieve his objectives in Gaza, which has witnessed “genocide.”

Israel’s presence in the corridor also complicates negotiations on the prisoner exchange deal involving the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas. The Israeli opposition accuses Netanyahu of constantly introducing new demands whenever negotiations make progress, thereby hindering a comprehensive agreement. Furthermore, the insistence on keeping forces in the corridor is seen by some as a way to prolong the war without making tangible progress on the exchange deal, especially since the ongoing conflict harms Palestinian civilians and exacerbates the suffering of Gaza’s population.

Netanyahu justifies his position by claiming that remaining in the corridor is essential for maintaining Israeli security

Abdellatif El-Menawy

The Philadelphi Corridor also risks significantly damaging Israel’s relationship with Egypt. Relations between Egypt and Israel, governed by the 1979 peace treaty, have already witnessed significant tension due to Netanyahu’s stance on this issue. Cairo rejects any Israeli military presence in the corridor, seeing it as a threat to Egypt’s national security and a hindrance to its role as a mediator in negotiations between Hamas and Israel. Egypt views the Philadelphi Corridor as a sensitive area that affects the stability of its borders, particularly in light of the security threats posed by militant activity in Sinai.

Additionally, a continued Israeli presence in the corridor would limit Egypt’s ability to control the Rafah Crossing, the only lifeline for Gaza’s residents to move and receive humanitarian aid. Cairo believes that Israel seeks to undermine its role as an influential regional mediator, especially after Egypt’s extensive efforts to calm the conflict in Gaza and find a permanent political solution.

Amid this tense atmosphere, the significance of last week’s surprise visit to the Gaza border by Lt. Gen. Ahmed Khalifa, chief of staff of the Egyptian Armed Forces, cannot be overlooked. The visit aimed to “inspect the security situation and secure Egypt’s borders with the Gaza Strip,” according to a statement from the Egyptian military spokesperson. Khalifa emphasized that “the primary mission of the armed forces is to defend the nation’s borders on all strategic fronts, and the armed forces personnel are fully capable of protecting the homeland’s borders, generation after generation.” Such visits carry important symbolic weight.

Another critical question arises: Is the US making sufficient efforts to convince Israel not to stay in the Philadelphi Corridor?

While the US plays a key role in mediating between Israel and Hamas, its efforts to persuade Israel to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor are yet to yield results. Washington recently presented a new proposal for a ceasefire and the release of hostages, which included solutions to several points of contention, such as the Israeli military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor. However, Netanyahu remains firm in his stance, impeding significant progress in these negotiations.

The US is coordinating with Egypt and Qatar to push the parties toward a compromise and has proposed international monitoring systems to protect the border and prevent smuggling, which could convince Israel to withdraw its forces. Yet, so far, American efforts have been thwarted by Israeli intransigence. Some analysts argue that Washington has not applied enough pressure on Netanyahu, possibly due to America’s focus on other regional issues or because of its reliance on Israel as a strategic security partner in the Middle East.

Egypt views the Philadelphi Corridor as a sensitive area that affects the stability of its borders

Abdellatif El-Menawy

There is no doubt that both Israel and Hamas are exaggerating their demands regarding the exchange deal and ceasefire, which complicates efforts to reach a compromise. Israel demands a complete halt to rocket fire, the destruction of Hamas’ tunnel network and the return of all Israeli hostages held by Hamas. In contrast, Hamas insists on a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, including the Philadelphi Corridor, as well as a lifting of the years-long siege.

Both sides aim to secure greater gains at the expense of the other. Israel seeks to regain its soldiers and stop rocket attacks while maintaining its security control, whereas Hamas aims to achieve a political victory by forcing Israel to withdraw completely from the territory. Furthermore, regional players like Egypt and Qatar have their own interests, adding to the political complexity of the situation.

The new American proposal aims to offer practical solutions to the contentious issues between Israel and Hamas, including the Philadelphi Corridor. It includes the deployment of international monitoring systems along the border to prevent weapons smuggling through tunnels, which could convince Israel to withdraw its forces. The proposal also involves some concessions from Hamas, such as agreeing to a temporary ceasefire, during which the siege on Gaza would be lifted.

However, the success of the American proposal largely depends on the willingness of both parties to make concessions. If Israel agrees to withdraw its forces from the corridor, this could pave the way for progress on the exchange deal and a ceasefire. On the other hand, Hamas must accept compromises that ensure some of its demands are met without jeopardizing the ceasefire.

The Philadelphi Corridor is more than just a narrow border strip; it is a symbol of the political and military complexities that govern the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu’s insistence on keeping Israeli forces in this corridor reflects the challenges Israel faces in securing its borders on the one hand and maintaining internal political balance on the other. Meanwhile, Hamas remains steadfast in its demands, making it difficult to reach a compromise.

The US’ role in this crisis could be decisive in bridging the gap between the two sides, but it requires more pressure on Israel to make concessions. The question remains: Will the international community succeed in resolving this complex crisis and achieving lasting peace in the region?

• Dr. Abdellatif El-Menawy has covered conflicts worldwide. X: @ALMenawy