Yesterday, Egypt held presidential elections, but there was never any doubt that the current head of state, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, will emerge triumphant. What is less clear is how Sisi will handle the difficult decisions he must make as the Israel-Hamas war continues. His country controls a border with Gaza, and has served as an intermediary between Israel and Hamas, including in recent hostage negotiations. It also has its own interests, which Ofir Winter, Morr Link, and Adam Sharon explain:

Egypt, under the current circumstances, is reluctant to assume responsibility for security in Gaza after the war, or to oversee any postbellum government, and is not inclined to participate in any international force deployed in the region.

Egypt also seems to oppose the idea that Israel should achieve all its objectives in the war: defeating Hamas, evading responsibility for governing Gaza, and handing the burden over to regional and international players indefinitely. Moreover, despite Egypt’s stance against using Gaza as a base for terror activities, it rules out any continued post-conflict Israeli military presence in the Strip, whether in the form of full reoccupation, a security zone, or buffers along the border.

Alongside the apparent disagreements between Jerusalem and Cairo regarding the postwar reality, the two countries share a long list of common interests, which could lay the foundation for future understandings. Among them are a mutual desire to weaken Hamas and demilitarize the Gaza Strip; to establish a stable regime in Gaza to prevent it from becoming a hub for terrorism targeting Israel and Egypt; to position Egypt as the main mediator and key actor in forging Gaza’s new reality; to curb the influence of the radical [Iran-led bloc] in the Middle East; and to strengthen regional initiatives aimed at peace, stability, and development.

In part, Winter, Link, and Sharon explain, Cairo is skeptical of Israel’s goals because it doesn’t think the IDF is capable of rooting out Hamas completely.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.