Egypt's acceptance of global forces in Gaza raises questions

As the Gaza war approaches its two year mark, questions remain about the status and governance of the enclave after a prospective end to the conflict.

Although, the proposition to deploy an Arab-International force to stabilize the strip is not new, Egypt’s change of stance on the matter raises further questions and concerns over Gaza’s post-war order, the Middle East Monitor reported on August 26th.

Egypt’s Foreign Minister, Badr Abdelatty, recently declared Cairo’s readiness to “contribute to any international force in Gaza,” so long as it operates under a UN Security Council mandate and within a political roadmap.

This marks a notable departure from prior opposition, signalling a willingness to help diffuse tensions along the volatile northern Sinai border while countering fears of Israeli occupation of the Strip by Hamas.

Reportedly, Egypt has also for months quietly prepared cadres of Palestinian security personnel—aligned with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority—for eventual governance and stabilization roles within Gaza, signalling Cairo’s broader vision for a transition away from Hamas, within a UN-endorsed framework.

Egypt has matched its diplomatic signals with concrete moves on the ground, as Cairo has deployed 40,000 troops to North Sinai, near the Gaza border, nearly double the limit set by the 1979 peace treaty with Israel. The deployment underscores Cairo’s alarm at Israel’s desires for displacement or territorial expansion.

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has floated a proposal that would assign Egypt a long-term administrative role in Gaza for up to 15 years. In return, Cairo would receive substantial incentives, including the cancellation of its estimated $155 billion foreign debt, direct US involvement in the Nile Dam dispute in Egypt’s favour, increased military aid to stabilize Sinai, and even tacit backing for President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi to extend his rule until 2036.

Observers suggest that Egypt’s changing posture seeks to block Israeli ambitions and marginalise Hamas, while positioning the Palestinian Authority to fill the postwar vacuum under international auspices. However, this strategy could carry significant risks. The mandate of any force could be contested, particularly on the issue of disarming resistance groups. Disputes could also emerge over the authority under which the force operates and how it coordinates with Israel. Most critically, its legitimacy will depend on whether Hamas and the wider Palestinian public perceive it as a stabilizing presence or as an extension of the occupation.