Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with Egyptian intelligence chief Hassan Rashad signals a partial thaw in Cairo-Jerusalem relations after months of tension over Rafah and the Philadelphi Corridor.
Security officials describe the meeting as a positive signal, though not a genuine breakthrough. Egyptian sources warn that any Israeli return to combat operations in Gaza or violation of the ceasefire understandings could collapse the fragile détente.
Senior political officials in Jerusalem said that the visit to Israel on October 21, 2025, by Rashad, and his meeting with Netanyahu and newly appointed Shin Bet head David Zini, marks a step toward easing the severe tension that has characterized Israel–Egypt relations since the outbreak of the war on October 7, 2023.
According to the officials, the meeting builds on the phone conversation between Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Netanyahu, held under American pressure during President Trump’s visit to Israel.
During that call, Sisi invited Netanyahu to attend the regional summit in Sharm el-Sheikh.
Senior security sources said that the Rashad-Netanyahu meeting reflects a mutual desire in both Jerusalem and Cairo to renew and maintain high-level communication channels, in light of the American demand to implement President Trump’s Middle East peace plan and to reinforce the peace treaty between the two countries.
The fact that President Sisi dispatched his intelligence chief to Israel underscores Egypt’s perception of itself as a central regional player, a mediator, and an influential actor in shaping the new regional order that President Trump seeks to establish.
The timing of the meeting is delicate, as it coincides with the Gaza ceasefire and the need to stabilize the security situation. This effort requires both Israel and Egypt to coordinate closely.
According to senior Egyptian sources, the continuation of calm or renewed tension in Israel–Egypt relations depends primarily on Israel’s conduct in the coming period and its adherence to the Gaza ceasefire agreement.
Cairo argues that Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians was the primary trigger for the escalation, and a course change could help calm bilateral relations.
Tensions between the two countries peaked when, during the war, Israel took control of the “Philadelphi Corridor” and the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing, moves Egypt refused to recognize. At the same time, Egypt has itself been accused of violating elements of the Sinai peace arrangements.
Last month, President Sisi warned that Israel’s policies could endanger existing peace accords, including the landmark Camp David Agreement, even referring to Israel as “the enemy,” for the first time since the treaty was signed in 1979.
In recent months, Egypt has pursued an intensive diplomatic campaign against Israel over the ongoing war in Gaza and has encouraged other countries to recognize a Palestinian state.
Cairo viewed Trump’s earlier “migration plan” as a threat to its national security and a factor worsening its ties with Israel.
Now that the issue has been removed from the agenda as part of Trump’s broader peace framework, tensions have somewhat eased.
Diplomatic sources note that Egypt conditions any further thaw in relations on Israel’s full compliance with the ceasefire, a commitment to refrain from resuming hostilities, and a guarantee to reopen the Rafah crossing permanently.
Senior Israeli security officials, however, caution that despite the Rashad–Netanyahu meeting, there is no clear sign of a new strategic breakthrough or a fundamental shift in either country’s policy.
The longstanding relationship between Egypt and Israel remains rooted in the 1979 peace treaty, characterized by relative diplomatic quiet and mutual security interests, rather than genuine friendship.
The meeting thus represents a “positive milestone” and a declaration of intent to cooperate, but it does not alter the underlying dynamics of cautious, limited trust.
Since the outbreak of the war, there is little confidence between the two sides; their interests are not always aligned, and the future trajectory remains uncertain. Much will depend on the success or failure of implementing President Trump’s peace plan.
