Hamas has issued a stern warning that any Israeli attempt to place obstacles or conditions on the reopening of the Rafah crossing would violate the terms of the Gaza ceasefire. The statement, delivered on February 1 by senior movement spokesman Hazem Qassem, frames control over Rafah as a litmus test for the ceasefire’s durability and for international guarantees intended to protect civilians.
The movement called on mediators and guarantors of the ceasefire to monitor Israeli activity at the crossing to prevent Gaza from sliding back into a new blockade. Hamas’s demand reflects an acute political and humanitarian sensitivity: Rafah is not merely a border gate but a symbol of access, relief and the possibility of medical evacuation for thousands of Gazans.
Gaza’s Government Media Office echoed the uncertainty, saying the operational mechanism for Rafah’s reopening remains unclear. It said the first phase of any opening is expected to allow wounded and sick patients to exit the enclave for treatment; more than 18,000 people are currently reported to need care outside Gaza, underscoring the urgency of predictable, unfettered movement.
Israel, however, presented the situation in procedural terms: it described February 1 as a one-day “pilot opening” and announced the crossing would formally open on February 2. The crossing has been effectively closed since May 2024, when Israeli forces took control of the Palestinian side; before then Rafah was Gaza’s principal external gateway and a major conduit for international humanitarian aid.
The stakes extend beyond logisitics. If Israel imposes vetting procedures, movement limits, or security conditions at Rafah, Palestinians and their backers will likely view such measures as a de facto reimposition of a blockade. That perception risks politicising humanitarian flows and could quickly translate into renewed hostilities or the collapse of fragile diplomatic arrangements that have kept the ceasefire in place.
Egypt’s role will be pivotal. Rafah sits on the Gaza‑Egypt border, and Cairo must balance security concerns about militant movement with domestic political sensitivities and international pressure to facilitate aid. Western governments and the UN, which have pushed for steady humanitarian access, will watch whether mediators can secure a clear, written procedure guaranteeing unimpeded medical evacuations and aid deliveries.
What happens at Rafah will be a short-term test of whether ceasefire mediators can translate diplomatic assurances into a durable, operational reality. If the crossing remains reliably open for medical cases and humanitarian supplies, it could stabilize the fragile calm. If it is effectively reclosed or operates under restrictive conditions, the humanitarian crisis will deepen and the ceasefire’s political foundations will be further strained.