Sisi’s Firm Rejection of Trump’s Palestinian Displacement Plan: A Strategic Stance for Egypt
Despite Cold Peace with Israel, Egypt Faces Internal Challenges and Threats from Gaza.
Watan-“Refusing immigration (from Gaza) is a firm Egyptian principle – just like maintaining peace and not interfering in any war,” explained Ibrahim Eissa, a well-known Egyptian TV host close to the regime. This statement may seem somewhat strange to the Israelis. Every few days, another video of a military march in the land of the Nile is published, and one can hear the drums of war.
Furthermore, it has been said that Egypt has an army with a state, not a state with an army. So, does this state hold reservations about war? To understand the logic, we must understand the hierarchical structure of Egyptian society.
Generals Control the State
Since the Free Officers Revolution of 1952, which overthrew the monarchy, the military elite has controlled Egypt. During the Arab Spring events, it was the senior officers who removed Hosni Mubarak. At the beginning of the week, Cairo marked the 14th anniversary of the announcement by Vice President Omar Suleiman, in which he transferred executive powers from Mubarak to the Supreme Military Council.
The Egyptian army is not just a military organization; generals control hundreds of bakeries, construction projects, and hotels. It is estimated that one-third of the Egyptian economy is under their control. From this, we understand who the biggest threat to Egypt’s rulers is – it is not the Muslim Brotherhood or even the protesters; both can be suppressed.
The biggest threat lies within the ranks of the generals. If Sisi does not continue to inflate the military budgets, the decision will immediately affect their personal and economic interests. Less equipment and fewer troops mean less money, and so on. For exactly this reason, war presents a danger that the leadership in Cairo might not be ready to take on.
It is enough to mention that defeats of Arab armies have led to coups and changes in power. In Syria, Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad rose to power after the Six-Day War – the battle that ended the path of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. Three years later, he passed away, and his deputy, Anwar Sadat, replaced him. In short, there is no surer way to lose power than a war against Israel.
Interests and Bitter Hatred
On the other hand, even after five decades of peace agreements, the Egyptian obsession with persecution has not been eliminated. In the land of the Nile, there is always concern among relevant circles about “Israeli expansionist ambitions.”
The recurring scenario in regular maneuvers is an invasion by the Israeli army. Worse still, the Egyptian leadership has made no effort over the decades to change the inflammatory content against Israel. In recent years, there have been some changes in the content. Thus, a cold peace agreement emerged, based solely on security and political interests. If there is one lesson to be learned from the failures of October 7, it is that interests alone are not enough to maintain stability and calm in the Middle East.
At times, bitter hatred can disrupt rational considerations. It seems that this is not the situation in Egypt so far, and Sisi is closer to peace than his predecessors, yet he is far from the fundamentalism of the Muslim Brotherhood. The opposite is true; the Egyptian president has strengthened cooperation with Israel.
His sharp opposition to Trump’s plan to evacuate the Palestinians should be viewed in light of the threat that the Sinai Peninsula could become a hub for terrorism sponsored by Gazans. Israel has learned the hard way that it must be prepared for every scenario.
