Overview
Under a U.S. President Donald Trump–brokered, 20-point plan to end the Gaza war, Israel and Hamas entered a ceasefire in October 2025 that exchanged 20 living Israeli hostages for roughly 2,000 Palestinian detainees, saw partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and promised a phased reopening of border crossings under international oversight. One of the earliest and most sensitive tests of this deal is the Rafah crossing with Egypt, Gaza’s main outlet to the outside world. Israel has kept Rafah closed since the ceasefire began, tying reopening to the return of all hostage remains, while more than 16,500 Gaza residents are deemed in urgent need of treatment outside the enclave.
On December 3, 2025, Israel’s military liaison body COGAT announced that Rafah would soon open “exclusively for the exit of residents” from Gaza to Egypt, under Israeli security approval and European Union supervision, echoing a January 2025 arrangement. Egypt and a coalition of Arab and Muslim states swiftly rejected any exit-only scheme, insisting that Rafah must operate in both directions per clause 12 of Trump’s plan, which forbids displacement and guarantees a right of return for any Gazan who leaves. The dispute has turned a technical border-management issue into a litmus test for whether the Trump ceasefire can deliver humanitarian relief without enabling coerced population transfer – and whether Israel, Egypt, Hamas, and Washington can actually enforce the complex, multi-phase roadmap they signed on to.
Key Indicators
People Involved
Organizations Involved
The Government of Israel is the central decision‑maker on military operations in Gaza, border control, and implementation of Trump’s ceasefire plan.
Egypt controls the southern side of the Rafah crossing and plays a central mediating role in Gaza ceasefire and border arrangements.
Hamas is the Palestinian Islamist movement that ruled Gaza prior to the war and is a central party to the ceasefire and border arrangements.
COGAT is the Israeli Defense Ministry body that manages civilian coordination in the occupied territories, including Gaza border crossings and humanitarian access.
Eight Arab and Islamic states have coordinated diplomatic positions on Gaza, including a joint stand against unilateral changes at Rafah.
EUBAM Rafah is the EU mission tasked with monitoring and assisting operations at the Rafah crossing when mandated.
Timeline
-
Netanyahu says first phase of ceasefire almost complete
Public StatementIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announces that the first phase of the ceasefire plan is nearly completed, citing hostage releases and partial withdrawals, while reiterating demands for Hamas disarmament in phase two. The unresolved dispute over Rafah’s reopening, however, underscores the fragility of the process.
-
Eight Arab and Islamic states reject exit‑only Rafah
Regional DiplomacyThe foreign ministers of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, and the UAE issue a joint statement expressing 'deep concern' over Israel’s exit‑only Rafah plan, rejecting any attempts to displace Palestinians and urging full implementation of Trump’s 20‑point plan, including two‑way operation of Rafah.
-
Egypt publicly denies agreement to one‑way Rafah opening
Rebuttal / DiplomacyEgypt’s State Information Service, via Diaa Rashwan and official statements, rejects Israeli claims of coordination over an exit‑only Rafah reopening. Cairo insists that any opening must be in both directions and align with Trump’s ceasefire clause that prohibits displacement and guarantees a right of return.
-
Israel announces Rafah will reopen for exits only
Public StatementCOGAT declares that, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement and political directives, Rafah will open 'in the coming days exclusively for the exit of residents' from Gaza into Egypt, coordinated with Egyptian authorities and supervised by an EU delegation, mirroring the January 2025 mechanism.
-
Israel delays Rafah reopening, keeps majority control of Gaza
Policy DecisionIsrael postpones a scheduled reopening of Rafah and announces that all humanitarian supplies will instead pass through Kerem Shalom after Israeli security checks. Reports note that Israeli forces still control more than half of Gaza, including most of Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor, despite the ceasefire.
-
Aid briefly enters Gaza through Rafah before renewed closure
HumanitarianHumanitarian trucks begin entering Gaza through Rafah as Egypt hosts a peace summit, but Israel closes the crossing again on October 14 after Hamas fails to return all hostage remains, leaving Rafah shut for both people and most aid.
-
Main ceasefire takes effect in Gaza
CeasefireThe ceasefire outlined in Trump’s plan enters into force. Rafah is supposed to reopen during phase one, but Israel keeps the crossing largely closed, citing the need for arrangements with Egypt and the return of all hostage remains.
-
Israel and Hamas accept Trump’s ceasefire framework
AgreementIsrael and Hamas accept Trump’s 20‑point plan, which is later endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution. The agreement sets out phased ceasefire terms, prisoner‑hostage exchanges, Israeli withdrawals, and border arrangements, including Rafah’s reopening under an EU mission.
-
Trump unveils 20‑point plan to end Gaza war
DiplomacyU.S. President Donald Trump releases a 20‑point proposal to halt fighting in Gaza, secure hostage releases, orchestrate Israeli withdrawals, disarm Hamas, and create an international stabilization force. The plan includes reopening Rafah under EU supervision and prohibits displacement of Gaza residents.
-
EU mission briefly reactivates Rafah under January ceasefire
Ceasefire / HumanitarianDuring a short‑lived January 2025 truce, the European Union Border Assistance Mission to Rafah (EUBAM Rafah) is redeployed to supervise limited movements—primarily medical evacuations—through the crossing, under a mechanism coordinated with COGAT and Egypt.
-
Israel seizes Rafah crossing during southern Gaza offensive
Military ActionIsraeli forces take 'operational control' of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing, closing a vital conduit for humanitarian aid and potential civilian evacuation to Egypt. Tanks deploy across the Rafah area, signalling Israel’s determination to press on despite truce talks.
-
Hamas attack on Israel triggers Gaza war
Conflict EscalationHamas and allied militants launch a large‑scale attack on southern Israel, killing civilians and taking hostages, prompting a massive Israeli military campaign in Gaza that eventually sets the stage for Trump’s 2025 ceasefire plan.
Scenarios
Two‑Way Rafah Reopening Under Tight International Supervision
Discussed by: UN officials, European diplomats, and regional mediators cited in Reuters, AP, and Guardian coverage
Under growing humanitarian pressure and coordinated regional diplomacy, Israel backs away from a strictly exit‑only model and agrees with Egypt and the EU on a phased two‑way reopening of Rafah. In this scenario, Rafah enables controlled departures for medical and humanitarian cases while also allowing regulated entry of aid and, eventually, return of Gazans who temporarily left, in full alignment with clause 12 of Trump’s plan. Robust EU (EUBAM) presence, joint Israeli‑Egyptian vetting, and UN monitoring seek to prevent arms smuggling while addressing displacement fears. This outcome would bolster the Trump plan’s legitimacy and could help unlock progress toward the ceasefire’s second phase, including discussions on Hamas disarmament and governance reforms.
De Facto Exit‑Only Corridor with Ambiguous Right of Return
Discussed by: Commentators in regional media and some Israeli outlets warning of 'voluntary displacement' dynamics
Israel proceeds with an exit‑focused Rafah opening, framed as humanitarian relief for the sick and vulnerable, while Egypt reluctantly cooperates under strict quotas and political assurances. Formally, Gazans retain a notional right to return under Trump’s plan, but in practice, security restrictions, bureaucratic hurdles, and political resistance on both sides make return extremely difficult. Over time, tens of thousands of Gazans leave for Egypt or onward destinations, raising accusations that the ceasefire has facilitated a slow‑motion, 'voluntary' displacement reminiscent of past refugee crises. This scenario would intensify legal and political challenges to Israel and could erode Egyptian domestic support for cooperation, but might still be tolerated by some international actors prioritizing short‑term humanitarian relief over strict legal principles.
Deadlock at Rafah and Erosion of the Trump Ceasefire
Discussed by: Analysts cited by Al Jazeera, Palestine Chronicle, and humanitarian NGOs
Egypt stands firm against any exit‑only arrangement, and Israel refuses to open Rafah for two‑way traffic until every hostage’s remains are returned, leading to a protracted deadlock. Humanitarian conditions deteriorate further as patients cannot leave and aid remains constrained. Each side accuses the other of violating the ceasefire: Israel points to Hamas’s failure to locate all remains; Hamas and regional states highlight Israel’s noncompliance on crossings and continued lethal operations inside Gaza. Confidence in Trump’s plan erodes, international donors hesitate to fund reconstruction, and pressure mounts for either a renegotiated framework or renewed fighting. Rafah becomes a symbol of the ceasefire’s inability to deliver tangible improvements for civilians.
Ceasefire Breakdown and Shift to a New Framework
Discussed by: Worst‑case scenarios in think‑tank commentary and guarded warnings by UN officials
Escalating clashes around Rafah, combined with mutual accusations of bad‑faith implementation, lead to a collapse of the Trump ceasefire. Israel resumes major military operations in parts of Gaza, citing Hamas violations and unresolved hostage issues; Hamas responds with rocket fire and guerrilla attacks. Regional actors—Egypt, Qatar, Turkiye—either step back from the Trump plan or try to broker a new framework that dilutes some of its more ambitious provisions (such as rapid Hamas disarmament or expansive international oversight). Under this scenario, the status of Rafah reverts to a wartime bargaining chip, and the window for structured reconstruction and border normalization closes, prolonging Gaza’s isolation.
Historical Context
2005 Rafah Agreement and Early EU Border Mission
2005–2007What Happened
Following Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, Israel and the Palestinian Authority signed an Agreement on Movement and Access that placed the Rafah crossing under PA control with European Union monitoring via the EUBAM Rafah mission. The EU oversaw passenger flows while Israel monitored via cameras and could raise security objections. After Hamas took over Gaza in 2007, the mission was suspended and Rafah’s operation became increasingly politicized, fluctuating with Egypt’s security concerns and intra‑Palestinian divisions.
Outcome
Short term: For roughly a year and a half, Rafah functioned as a semi‑normal international border with EU oversight, allowing relatively regular movement of people, though still subject to Israeli security vetoes.
Long term: The collapse of the arrangement after the Hamas–Fatah split highlighted how border regimes in Gaza are fragile, contingent on political alignments, and easily weaponized. The current return of EUBAM under Trump’s plan reprises this model but under even more contentious circumstances.
Why It's Relevant
Today’s debate over EU‑supervised Rafah operations under the Trump ceasefire echoes the 2005–2007 experiment, showing both the potential and fragility of internationalized border management in Gaza. It underscores that without a durable political settlement and clear lines of authority, technical monitoring missions cannot prevent crossings from becoming tools of pressure or de facto siege.
The 1948 Palestinian Exodus and the Right of Return Debate
1948–presentWhat Happened
During the 1948 Arab–Israeli war, an estimated 700,000 Palestinian Arabs—about 85% of those living in areas that became Israel—fled or were expelled, becoming refugees. The UN Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte argued that they had a right to return, and his recommendations underpinned UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirmed the refugees’ right to return or receive compensation. Israel rejected mass return, and the displacement became known among Palestinians as the Nakba ('catastrophe'). Debates over the right of return have remained central to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.
Outcome
Short term: Most refugees were not allowed to return, and their camps in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria became long‑term communities dependent on international aid.
Long term: Generations of Palestinians have experienced repeated displacement and war, reinforcing fears that any 'temporary' exodus can become permanent. The right of return remains a core political and legal demand, shaping reactions to any policy that appears to encourage Palestinians to leave their homes.
Why It's Relevant
Egypt’s and other states’ insistence that Rafah not become a one‑way exit reflects deep historical memory of 1948, when many Palestinians left expecting to return but never did. The explicit reference in Trump’s plan to banning displacement and preserving a right of return for Gazans who leave is a direct attempt to assure that Rafah does not become another chapter in that history—though critics fear that an exit‑heavy policy could, in practice, replicate aspects of the Nakba.
UN‑Managed Humanitarian Border Crossings in Syria
2014–2023What Happened
In the Syrian conflict, the UN operated cross‑border aid routes such as the Bab al‑Hawa crossing from Turkey into opposition‑held northwest Syria, without Damascus’s consent, under Security Council resolutions. Over time, Russia and China used their veto power to reduce and threaten these authorizations, culminating in repeated showdowns and, at times, the blocking of renewals. Millions of Syrians’ access to food and medicine hinged on these decisions.
Outcome
Short term: Each renewal crisis produced uncertainty and occasional interruptions in aid deliveries, worsening conditions for displaced Syrians in Idlib and surrounding areas.
Long term: The Syrian case showed how humanitarian border regimes can become arenas for geopolitical bargaining, with major powers using access as leverage while civilians bear the cost.
Why It's Relevant
Rafah under Trump’s Gaza plan resembles Syrian cross‑border operations in its reliance on international supervision and the potential for powerful states to instrumentalize access. The Syrian precedent suggests that even when crossings are framed as neutral humanitarian corridors, they can be periodically shut or reshaped by political disputes—exactly the risk now visible as Israel, Egypt, and others wrangle over whether Rafah should be exit‑only or genuinely two‑way.