JERUSALEM — Despite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining an Israeli military presence in the Philadelphi Corridor indefinitely, Israeli negotiators have expressed support for a complete withdrawal from the strategically important border area in a second phase of a potential hostage deal, according to Hebrew media reports on Tuesday.
This stance, reportedly communicated to mediators in recent days, contradicts Netanyahu’s public statements, where he emphasized the necessity of Israel’s continued control of the Philadelphi Corridor, which runs along the border between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.
In a live primetime address on Monday, Netanyahu argued that withdrawing troops from the area would allow arms and equipment for making weapons to be smuggled back into Gaza, thereby enabling Hamas to rearm and potentially smuggle out hostages.
However, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli negotiators have indicated that they are aligned with a US-proposed framework that suggests a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the corridor. Under this plan, Israeli troops would remain in the corridor for the initial six weeks, followed by a full withdrawal in the second phase of the deal.
An Arab diplomat, speaking to The Times of Israel, confirmed the details of the Haaretz report. The diplomat revealed that Mossad chief David Barnea made an urgent trip to Doha just hours before Netanyahu’s press conference on Monday.
Barnea’s mission was to convey Israel’s position to Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, who has been playing a key mediating role in the hostage negotiations.
Netanyahu’s Stance
In his Monday address, Netanyahu firmly opposed the idea of withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor, calling it “vital” to Israel’s security. He argued that maintaining control of the 14-kilometer (nine-mile) stretch of border would prevent Hamas from rearming and launching future attacks on Israel.
Netanyahu pointed to the devastating October 7 assault on Israel, which left hundreds of Israeli civilians and soldiers dead, as a warning of what could happen if Hamas regained access to weapons and smuggling routes.
“Withdrawing from the Philadelphi Corridor would be a grave mistake,” Netanyahu said in his address. “It would open the door to weapons, explosives, and materials for building tunnels being smuggled into Gaza once again. We cannot allow Hamas to rebuild its terror infrastructure.”
Netanyahu was also vague about the long-term plans for Israeli control of the corridor but indicated that it would include a military presence on the ground. He made it clear that, in his view, retaining control over the border zone was essential for Israel’s national security and would prevent future attacks from Hamas.
The Role of the United States
The ongoing negotiations, brokered by the United States with Qatari assistance, appear to be at the heart of the disagreement within Israel’s leadership.
According to sources familiar with the talks, the final US proposal for a ceasefire deal envisions Israeli forces reducing their presence in the corridor during the first stage of the agreement, which would last six weeks. After that, Israel would be expected to pull out of the area entirely.
The US framework, reportedly presented to Israeli officials in late May, is believed to be aimed at creating conditions for a sustainable ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.
The plan has received support from key Israeli negotiators, who view a phased withdrawal as a way to balance Israel’s security needs with the demands of the international community and the Palestinians.
However, Netanyahu’s opposition to the US proposal complicates the situation. The prime minister has been clear that he sees any pullback from the corridor as a threat to Israel’s security, potentially undermining efforts to reach a comprehensive ceasefire agreement.
Internal Divisions and the Way Forward
The reported differences between Israeli negotiators and Netanyahu reflect broader divisions within Israel’s political and military leadership over how to manage the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
While some officials believe that a phased withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor could be a necessary step toward ending the war, others share Netanyahu’s concerns about the security risks involved.
These internal disagreements have surfaced at a critical time, as Israel faces increasing pressure from the international community to agree to a ceasefire and address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The Philadelphi Corridor, which has long been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, remains a central issue in the negotiations.
For years, the corridor has been used by smugglers to transport weapons, supplies, and people into Gaza, bypassing Israeli and Egyptian security measures.
Following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Philadelphi Corridor became a key battleground between Israel and Hamas, with Israel frequently targeting smuggling tunnels and other infrastructure in the area.
As the war in Gaza continues, the fate of the corridor is likely to play a major role in shaping the outcome of any future ceasefire agreement.
While Israeli negotiators appear willing to consider a full withdrawal as part of a broader deal, Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining a military presence in the area suggests that reaching a final agreement will not be easy.
International Reactions
The apparent split in Israel’s leadership over the Philadelphi Corridor has drawn attention from international observers, with some questioning whether Netanyahu’s hardline stance could derail efforts to end the conflict.
The Qatari government, which has been instrumental in facilitating negotiations between Israel and Hamas, is believed to favor a compromise that would see Israeli forces eventually withdrawing from the corridor. Qatar has urged all parties to prioritize the humanitarian needs of the people of Gaza and to work toward a sustainable ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to play a central role in the negotiations, with officials reportedly working behind the scenes to find a solution that addresses both Israel’s security concerns and the demands of Hamas and other Palestinian factions.
Conclusion
As the negotiations over the Philadelphi Corridor continue, the divide between Netanyahu’s hardline position and the more flexible approach of Israeli negotiators could become a significant obstacle to reaching a ceasefire agreement.
With international pressure mounting and the humanitarian situation in Gaza worsening, the stakes for Israel, Hamas, and the broader region remain extraordinarily high.
The outcome of these negotiations will likely determine not only the future of the Philadelphi Corridor but also the prospects for peace and stability in Gaza and beyond.