Egypt’s Gaza Plan: A Deadly Trap for Israel and the U.S.

The Plan Is a Dangerous Scheme That Threatens Israel’s Security, Strengthens Hamas, and Undermines U.S. Strategic Interests

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi

Under President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Egypt cooperates with Israel on border security, but has also allowed weapons and fighters to flow into Gaza through the Rafah crossing.

Shutterstock

The latest Arab summit in Cairo has produced yet another deceptive proposal disguised as a humanitarian effort to rebuild Gaza. In reality, the Egyptian plan is a dangerous scheme that threatens Israel’s security, strengthens Hamas, and undermines US strategic interests.

Rather than paving the way for peace, this initiative ensures that Hamas remains armed and capable of launching future attacks, all while securing billions in international funding under false pretenses.

Arab leaders, who have long manipulated the Palestinian issue to serve their own political agendas, cannot be trusted to oversee any aspect of Gaza’s reconstruction.

Arab leaders, who have long manipulated the Palestinian issue to serve their own political agendas, cannot be trusted to oversee any aspect of Gaza’s reconstruction.

Their endorsement of this plan is not about peace – it is about maintaining Hamas as a weapon against Israel while deceiving the world into believing they are working toward stability.

Any serious effort to rebuild Gaza must begin with the total disarmament of Hamas and the dismantling of its terror infrastructure, yet the Egyptian plan deliberately ignores this fundamental necessity.

Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,200 people and the capture of hundreds of hostages, was met with deafening silence from much of the Arab world.

Now, the same leaders who refused to condemn Hamas’s atrocities are pushing for a “reconstruction” plan that leaves the terror group intact. This is not a peace initiative; it is a strategy to rehabilitate Hamas while forcing Israel into concessions that would endanger its security.

The Egyptian plan’s so-called “interim government” is another sham. It claims to place Gaza under independent political leadership until the Palestinian Authority can assume control, yet it allows Hamas to maintain its military wing.

This is nothing more than a rebranding of Hamas’s rule, ensuring that the terror group continues to operate under the guise of governance.

Hamas has a long history of diverting humanitarian aid to fund its military operations, and there is no reason to believe that billions in international aid will be used any differently under this plan.

Arab states have consistently played a double game when it comes to Hamas. While some publicly condemn terror, they privately fund it, with countries like Qatar funneling millions of dollars to Hamas annually.

If Arab leaders were genuinely interested in peace, they would cut off all financial support to Hamas and demand its complete disarmament.

Instead, they are using the Egyptian plan to secure international backing for a policy that leaves Hamas’s power untouched while pretending to seek stability.

U.S. interests in the Middle East demand the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, not its preservation under the guise of reconstruction.

Egypt itself has been complicit in Hamas’s survival. While it cooperates with Israel on border security, it has also allowed weapons and fighters to flow into Gaza through the Rafah crossing.

If Egypt were serious about peace, it would permanently shut down Hamas’s supply routes and prevent any future arms transfers. Instead, it positions itself as a neutral mediator while continuing to enable Hamas’s operations.

The Trump administration must not be fooled by this deception. US interests in the Middle East demand the complete dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, not its preservation under the guise of reconstruction.

Any American support for the Egyptian plan would be a massive strategic mistake, empowering Hamas while weakening Israel’s position.

Instead of backing a flawed initiative, Washington should make it clear that any rebuilding effort in Gaza must be contingent on Hamas’s total disarmament and the elimination of all foreign funding to terrorist groups.

Broader geopolitical implications involved

Beyond the immediate security threat to Israel, this issue has broader geopolitical implications for American policy in the Middle East. A Hamas-controlled Gaza emboldens Iran, which provides weapons and financial support to the terrorist group in its larger mission of destabilizing the region and challenging US influence.

Allowing Hamas to remain in power, even under the guise of an “interim government,” strengthens Iran’s position and weakens America’s standing among its regional allies.

The US must ensure that its foreign policy aligns with the long-term goal of eliminating Iranian-backed terrorism rather than enabling it through misguided diplomatic efforts.

Israel cannot afford another ceasefire that allows Hamas to rearm and prepare for its next attack. Every previous attempt to reach a negotiated settlement has resulted in Hamas exploiting the pause to rebuild its military infrastructure.

The Egyptian plan is not a peace proposal—it is a dangerous ploy designed to preserve Hamas’s power while misleading the international community.

The only viable path forward is one that ensures Hamas is permanently removed from power, Gaza is demilitarized, and Israel retains full control over security operations to prevent future attacks. Any plan that fails to meet these conditions is doomed to perpetuate the cycle of violence.

Moreover, the West must recognize that the Palestinian issue has long been used as a political tool by Arab leaders who are less interested in solving the problem than in using it to deflect from their own domestic issues.

Many of these leaders rely on the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict to distract from economic hardships, political repression, and lack of basic freedoms in their own countries.

The current push for an Egyptian-led solution is yet another example of this strategy, aimed more at boosting Egypt’s diplomatic clout than at creating real peace.

The Egyptian plan is not a peace proposal – it is a dangerous ploy designed to preserve Hamas’s power while misleading the international community.

America and its allies must reject it outright and instead support a security-focused approach that prioritizes Israeli defense and the eradication of terrorism. Anything less would be an invitation for future bloodshed and a betrayal of the principles of true peace and stability in the region.

The international community must wake up to the reality that Hamas is not a political entity seeking compromise but a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. The only path to real peace in Gaza is one that ensures Hamas is removed from power and its ability to wage war is permanently dismantled.

Published originally under the title “The Egyptian Plan: A Deadly Trap for for Israel and the U.S.”

Amine Ayoub is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. His media contributions appeared in The Jerusalem Post, Yedioth Ahronoth , Arutz Sheva ,The Times of Israel and many others. His writings focus on Islamism, jihad, Israel and MENA politics. He tweets at @amineayoubx.
See more from this Author
Tehran Is Expanding Beyond Proxies to Forge Direct State Alliances, with Qatar as a Key Enabler
The Conversation Surrounding Foreign Influence in Education Must Shift From Passive Concern to Active Resistance Before It Is Too Late.
As China’s Repression of Uyghur Muslims Continues, Morocco’s Commitment to Religious Tolerance and Human Rights Offers a Potential Refuge—and a Stark Contrast to Global Inaction.
See more on this Topic
While Carnival Revelers Have to Limit Themselves, Ramadan Takes Place Undisturbed
The Plan Is a Dangerous Scheme That Threatens Israel’s Security, Strengthens Hamas, and Undermines U.S. Strategic Interests
The Foreign Influence Registration Scheme Seeks to Expose Covert Political Influence and Strengthen National Security in the United Kingdom