Gen. Mohamed El-Dewery
As US President Donald Trump prepares to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates beginning 13 May, questions, expectations, and ambitions are rising around the potential outcomes of this critical tour—particularly in light of the ongoing Israeli war on the Gaza Strip.
Many are asking whether the visit might be preceded, accompanied, or immediately followed by an announcement of a ceasefire, potentially paving the way for subsequent steps such as a prisoner exchange and the entry of humanitarian aid.
Setting aside speculation about supposed differences between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu regarding various issues—including the Gaza war, though I find such claims unconvincing—there is, in fact, considerable alignment between the two countries’ positions on this conflict.
This convergence is particularly evident on four central points: 1) the necessity of eliminating Hamas and ensuring that Gaza never again poses a threat to Israel; 2) the release of all hostages; 3) the refusal to abandon the population transfer project officially from either country’s agenda; and 4) advocacy for delivering humanitarian aid to Gaza through a completely new mechanism agreed upon by both sides, with the strict condition that Hamas cannot access or distribute any part of it.
While the US administration prefers that Israel avoid broadening its military operations in Gaza to preserve space for negotiations, it has not called for a halt to the campaign or a withdrawal from the areas Israel now controls—territory that constitutes nearly half of the Gaza Strip. Nor is Washington calling for a permanent ceasefire. As such, it is inaccurate to speak of any fundamental divergence between Washington and Tel Aviv on Gaza or to draw conclusions from hypothetical disagreements between the two capitals.
It has recently become clear that the United States is placing greater emphasis on the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, framing it as an urgent priority. That’s led to a proposal to involve American and other international companies in distributing aid within Gaza under strict oversight and total isolation from Hamas.
Despite the undeniable importance of humanitarian relief, this approach carries two problematic dimensions. First, there appears to be a US–Israeli agreement on terminating the role of UNRWA—effectively erasing the refugee question altogether. Second, it reduces the Palestinian cause to a purely humanitarian issue, stripping it of its political dimensions—a step toward liquidating the Palestinian question itself.
Despite the complex and challenging reality, Egypt’s efforts have not ceased. Cairo continues to seek middle-ground solutions that bridge Israeli and Palestinian positions. Serious attempts are underway to reach a temporary truce that would enable a prisoner exchange and provide a window for addressing key issues: Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, reconstruction, and the future of armed factions, particularly Hamas.
Undoubtedly, Egypt’s mediation, coordinated with Qatar and supported by the United States, aims to achieve a truce as soon as possible. This is not only a humanitarian imperative but a critical security requirement. The question remains: What can be expected of more than two million citizens facing a deadly triad of hunger, disease, and death? Desperate populations will likely pursue any path offering the slightest hope of escape.
A realistic reading of the current situation leads me to believe that the most we can expect in the coming days is a short-term truce, lasting several weeks, to allow for negotiation on core issues. If achieved, it would be a significant development given the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. This responsibility now rests with President Trump.
We are not asking him to resolve the entire Palestinian issue—but to pressure Israel into accepting a temporary truce, giving people space to breathe and a calmer environment in which to address deeper challenges. I believe Trump still can broker such a ceasefire, and we hope this is realized soon, regardless of the outcomes of his Gulf tour.
As for “the day after” arrangements, it is now clear that these extend far beyond Gaza. They encompass broader regional dynamics, including Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran, as well as the evolving relationship between President Trump and the Gulf states. In my estimation, the most significant dimension is the future integration of Israel into the regional system—not only politically and militarily but also economically, socially, and culturally. This is what we are likely to witness in the coming phase.
In conclusion, Egypt’s efforts have not—and will not—cease, despite Israel’s unprecedented intransigence and refusal to end hostilities in Gaza, which it views as essential to preserving its ruling coalition. I believe Egyptian and Qatari efforts are moving seriously toward a near-term truce.
Meanwhile, the American administration is proceeding quietly, with its primary goal being to secure a ceasefire that allows the release of the American captive and the entry of humanitarian aid, an outcome President Trump could present as a political success. Beyond that, Washington has effectively given Israel a green light to take whatever measures it deems necessary—whether in Gaza, the West Bank, against the Houthis, or on other fronts, with the sole exception of Iran. In that case, military action would require prior American coordination.
Ultimately, we await President Trump’s decisions as his broader vision for the region comes into focus.
This article was originally published on Ahram Online on May 11, 2025.
