“Scenarios for the Egyptian response”… Did the Israeli army control “half of the Philadelphia axis”?

The Philadelphia axis is considered a “buffer zone” and is subject to the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. However, two weeks after an Israeli military operation in the city of Rafah on the Egyptian border, the Israeli army took control of “half of the axis,” according to its statements to the media. This move has raised questions about the reasons behind and the repercussions of this action.

Control of half of the Philadelphia axis

On May 14, eyewitnesses reported seeing tanks crossing the strategically important Salah al-Din Road to the Brazil and El Geneina neighborhoods, according to the British newspaper The Guardian.

On May 15, CNN reported that Israeli forces took control of parts of the “Philadelphia Axis.”

Israeli forces advanced deep into Rafah, and the Israeli army took control of more than half of the Philadelphia axis, which is also called “Salah al-Din Road,” according to what Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper reported on Tuesday.

This is what the Israeli Army Spokesperson Unit confirms: “This matter is real… and we took control of half of the Philadelphia axis.”

But the unit refused to give the reasons for taking this step, or talk about the extent of the possibility of controlling the entire Philadelphia axis during the coming period.

What are the reasons for “Israeli control”?

The Philadelphia Axis, also called the “Salah al-Din Axis,” is located along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, and is 14 km long.

Israeli military and strategic expert, Kofi Lavie, believes that controlling the Philadelphia axis “is very important in light of the complex situation on the border between Israel and Egypt.”

He pointed out that “all tunnels that were discovered in the Philadelphia axis must be destroyed,” as he put it.

Last January, the head of the Egyptian State Information Service, Diaa Rashwan, said in response to statements by Israeli officials, in which they indicated the existence of weapons smuggling operations into the Gaza Strip from Egyptian territory, considering them to be “false allegations and claims.”

In a related context, Israeli political analyst Eddie Cohen points out that “Israel seeks to eliminate the Hamas movement, and this will not be done except by fully controlling every area in the Gaza Strip.”

He says that Hamas obtained “weapons and technology through tunnels,” “with or without the knowledge of the Egyptian side,” which prompted the Israeli army to “seize and control the Philadelphia axis,” according to Cohen.

The Israeli political analyst, Mordechai Kedar, agrees with him, who talks about “the smuggling highway through tunnels between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.”

Kedar told the media that seizing the Philadelphia axis would enable Israel to “stop and eliminate the smuggling movement through tunnels.”

How does Egypt view the Israeli move?

Egypt is the first Arab country to sign a peace agreement with Israel on March 26, 1979, a year after the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978.

Under the peace agreement, Cairo was able to recover the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel controlled in 1967, and Egypt fought a war to regain it in 1973.

The “Salah al-Din” axis, or Philadelphia, is considered a “buffer zone” by the peace treaty signed in 1979, and Israel withdrew from it completely as part of the plan to disengage from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

The arab media contacted the head of the Egyptian State Information Service, Diaa Rashwan, to clarify the “official Egyptian position” on the Israeli move, but did not receive a response until the time of publishing the report.

Speaking to the media, Imad Gad, advisor to Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, points out that “Israel is trying to impose a fait accompli policy on Egypt,” by controlling parts of the Philadelphia axis.

Israel will continue its quest to control the entire axis, and they will not listen to the Egyptian side until the plan to “eliminate the main force of the Hamas movement” is completed, according to Gad.

The advisor to Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies denies what Israeli analysts said about “arms smuggling from Egypt to the Gaza Strip,” and says: “This is not true, and it is the same exhausted and inaccurate allegations… and the same outdated arguments.”

The opposite is true. Egypt suffered from weapons smuggling through tunnels that came from “the direction of the Gaza Strip towards Egyptian territory,” and Cairo made “every effort to close all of these tunnels,” according to Gad.

For his part, the Egyptian military and strategic expert, Major General Staff Samir Farag, explains that “the region is buffered according to the peace agreement, but Israel is trying to escalate the situation with Egypt and drag it into other problems.”

The lands of the Philadelphia Axis are “not Egyptian,” but what is currently happening by the Israeli army is a “violation of the peace agreement” between the two countries, according to what he told the arab media.

In a related context, the Egyptian military and strategic expert, Major General Al-Sayyed Al-Jabri, stresses that Israeli control of the Philadelphia axis “threatens the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.”

The essence of the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel is “the absence of any military forces in the buffer or separation zone,” as he explained.

The entry of armored vehicles and artillery weapons is “a clear violation of the essence of the peace agreement,” which gives Egypt the right to “rearrange the situation of its armed forces in the entire Sinai.”

Is there an escalation?

The ” Peace Agreement ” allows Israel and Egypt to deploy forces limited in number and equipment, and limited in numbers and types of weapons and vehicles, with the aim of patrolling on the side of the Egyptian axis, to prevent smuggling, infiltration, and other criminal activities.

The agreement provides an Israeli presence within this buffer strip, known as the Philadelphia Axis, which is located within Area D in accordance with Annex I, the Protocol on Israeli Withdrawal and Security Arrangements, which allows the presence of a limited Israeli military force of four infantry battalions, field fortifications, and United Nations observers.

The Israeli force does not include any presence of tanks, artillery, or missiles, except for individual “surface-to-air” missiles.

The Israeli infantry forces in this area can have up to 180 military vehicles, with infantry not exceeding 4,000.

In Area C of the agreement, the presence of United Nations forces and the Egyptian civil police is allowed.

In Area B, Egyptian border units of four battalions equipped with light weapons are allowed.

In Area A, there are military forces consisting of an infantry division, an armored brigade, and artillery brigades, not exceeding 22 thousand Egyptian soldiers.

The Israeli forces controlled this Area D, including the Philadelphia axis, until they withdrew from it and handed it over to the Palestinian Authority in 2005.

To arrange an Egyptian presence for border guard forces, the “ Philadelphia Agreement ” was signed, which is in line with the “Crossings between Israel and the Palestinian Authority” agreement that was signed in the same year.

For his part, Cohen confirms that Israeli forces will remain in the Philadelphia axis in order to “stop and prevent the introduction of weapons from Egypt to the Hamas movement.”

As for Kedar, he points out that “Israel does not want to harm Egyptian national security from near or far, but if Cairo had done its duty and stopped the smuggling movement under the Philadelphia axis, Hamas would not have had the current power.”

The Egyptian and Israeli sides must sit down to “negotiate, discuss and reach understandings” on the Philadelphia axis, according to the Israeli political analyst.

For his part, Lafi talks about internal pressures in Egypt and Israel to “tamper with relations and each party accuses the other of not fulfilling its duties.”

But there must be a “military understanding” of the importance of relations between the two countries, as the Israeli military analyst points out.

According to Lavi’s estimates, the Israeli army’s control of the Philadelphia axis “will not affect relations between Egypt and Israel.”

But on the other hand, Gad asserts that what Israel is currently doing is “a violation of the security annex of the peace treaty.”

It is assumed that there will be “an angry, practical Egyptian reaction by diplomatic protest or withdrawal of ambassadors,” according to an advisor to the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

In a related context, Major General Farag points out that “Egypt will not submit to Israeli provocations, and will take diplomatic paths to respond to the violation of the peace agreement.”

Regarding the diplomatic tracks, the Egyptian military and strategic expert explains that they relate to Cairo informing Washington, as the “guarantor of the peace agreement,” that Israeli moves violate that agreement.”

Egypt can also “go to the Security Council” and file a complaint against Israel as it “violated an international agreement,” according to Major General Farag.

But Major General Al-Jabri talks about 3 future scenarios after the Israeli forces took control of half of the Philadelphia axis.

The first scenario is “the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the axis and not clinging to the land,” but if “the Israeli army clings to the land,” friction may occur between “the Egyptian border guards and the Israeli forces,” according to Major General Al-Jabri.

Al-Jabri talks about the third scenario, which is “the occurrence of clashes or escalation between the Egyptian and Israeli sides,” something whose “repercussions cannot be predicted,” and the military situation may develop “very quickly.”

At that time, “the form of the conflict will change and there will be a new reality in the entire region,” according to the warnings of the Egyptian military and strategic expert.

Earlier, The Eastern Herald reported the reason for the invasion of Gaza, as the last round of negotiations in Cairo aimed at brokering a ceasefire to halt Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip, which has resulted in genocide and ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians, ended without resolution, further deepening the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Despite intensive discussions, Israel’s rejection of proposed terms for a ceasefire agreement and its subsequent ground invasion in Rafah indicate a calculated strategy to maintain leverage.

Earlier this month, Karim A. A. Khan prosecutor of International Criminal Court sought warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, along with Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh. These actions are part of an investigation into alleged war crimes amid the ongoing conflict, highlighting the intense international scrutiny over both Israeli and Palestinian leadership.

Also, the United Nations Special Rapporteur in the occupied Palestinian territories, Francesca Albanese, labeled Israel’s military aggression in Gaza as genocide, citing over 30,000 Palestinian deaths, including more than 13,000 children, and 71,000 injuries. She urged immediate sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel. Israel rejected the findings, maintaining its conflict is with Hamas, not civilians. Gulf and African nations supported Albanese’s report, while the US, Israel’s ally, abstained from the session.