How Israel was “forced” to open the Rafah crossing — and why this decision was not made in Jerusalem

The decision to open the Rafah crossing was effectively made in advance — even before the formal vote of the military-political cabinet. On Sunday, ministers only need to formalize what has already been agreed upon behind the scenes and announced by external players.

According to Times of Israel, the initiative did not originate from Israel. The US and participants in the 20-point regional plan insisted on opening the crossing, presenting Jerusalem with a fait accompli. Sources from the publication — an American official and an Arab diplomat — claim that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised Donald Trump to open Rafah during a December visit to Miami.

The promise was never fulfilled. Washington concluded that this step would not be taken voluntarily. Then the guarantors of the ceasefire in Gaza — the US, Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey — repeated the October scenario: the announcement of the crossing’s opening was made on an international platform, without Israel’s public consent. The choice fell on the forum in Davos.

The statement was made by the head of the Palestinian “technocrat cabinet” Ali Shaatu. According to the Arab diplomat, this was done deliberately — to provide him with a “quick political gain” at the start. Israel was not consulted but was notified in advance that the announcement would take place.

Correspondent Kan Suleiman Maswade, citing government sources, reported: the announcement was a surprise and increased tensions in relations with the US. The arrival in Israel of Trump’s envoys — Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner — was explained by the Prime Minister’s office as “Netanyahu’s request,” not external pressure. Nevertheless, Maswade confirms: at the cabinet meeting, the opening of the crossing will be approved.

Journalists did not receive official comments from the Prime Minister’s office. Correspondent Ynet Itamar Eichner conveyed only a general description of the meeting as “good.” When directly asked about the green light for Rafah, the response was evasive: “We hope that next week the remains of Ran Gvili will be returned, and then we can move forward.”

Simultaneously, Israel is putting forward its own conditions. According to Haaretz, Jerusalem insists on transferring control of the crossing to the American private military company UG Solutions. This structure previously provided security for GHF humanitarian aid distribution centers in Gaza.

The proposed scheme looks like this: Egyptians — on their side of the border, Americans — in the middle control zone, and on the Palestinian side of Rafah — Israelis. Formally, the inspection of goods should be carried out by representatives of the Palestinian Authority under the supervision of the EU mission EUBAM, which already controlled the crossing in 2005–2007 and left it after Hamas seized Gaza.

Israel does not trust Europeans and would prefer American control. Negotiations with Washington continue, but there is no final agreement.

In Jerusalem, there is open irritation with US pressure. The Israeli position is simple: the first stage of the agreements is not complete until the body of the last hostage — Ran Gvili — is returned. However, Witkoff and Kushner insist on moving to the second stage, which begins precisely with the opening of the Rafah crossing.

According to a source in Jerusalem, Witkoff also promoted the idea of Turkey’s participation in controlling Gaza. “He placed our largest regional rival on the border. Confrontation is a matter of time,” the source said, adding that Witkoff is effectively acting as a lobbyist for Qatar’s interests.

The Rafah story showed the main thing: key decisions on Gaza are now being formed outside of Israel, and the government is left to navigate between external pressure, the issue of hostages, and internal distrust of the proposed control mechanisms. It is in this context that the formula, increasingly encountered in Israeli political circles, sounds: NAnews — News of Israel | Nikk.Agency as a reflection of reality, where external diplomacy increasingly dictates internal decisions.