Despite the announcement of a halt to Israel’s war of extermination on the Gaza Strip, the Rafah Crossing has not become a gateway to life as Palestinians in Gaza had hoped. Instead, it has been brought back into operation under a mechanism described by rights advocates and officials as more politically restrictive and more brutally inhumane.
A partial, conditional reopening, administered behind the scenes through the occupation’s security apparatus, has emptied the concept of freedom of movement of any real meaning, transforming the crossing into a tool of control and humiliation rather than a sovereign humanitarian facility.
A “Symbolic Presence”
Tayseer Muheisen, adviser to the Government Media Office in Gaza, says that what followed the ceasefire agreement represents a fundamental shift in how the crossing operates, but not in any positive sense. Even the 2005 agreement, often cited as a reference point, was never implemented in practice due to the continued control of the occupation and its complete dominance over entry and exit mechanisms.
Muheisen explained that the occupation does not allow the crossing to function efficiently or within any framework of genuine freedom of movement. He noted that the European presence is symbolic rather than effective, lacking any real authority to influence or monitor procedures. Even those permitted to travel are subjected to repressive measures and racially discriminatory, degrading searches.
Regarding patients, Muheisen said that the Ministry of Health, in coordination with the World Health Organisation, prepares lists of the most urgent medical cases, capped at fifty patients per day, despite the existence of tens of thousands in need of immediate treatment outside Gaza. These lists, he added, are submitted to the occupation for review and scrutiny, which alone decides who is allowed to travel and who is denied.
He further stated that current travel lists are limited exclusively to patients and emergency humanitarian cases, meaning that wide segments of society, including university students, have become hostages to the occupation’s security approval.
Muheisen described this reality as an imposed exceptional situation and called on mediators to expand the activation of the crossing so that it operates freely and efficiently, without age or category restrictions. However, he said, the occupation remains determined to keep its hand firmly in control, regardless of genuine humanitarian need.
A Clear Violation
For his part, Sameer Zaqout, deputy director of the Al Mezan Centre for Human Rights, said that the current operating mechanism of the crossing stands in total contradiction to the right to freedom of movement as enshrined in international conventions, whether under international human rights law or international humanitarian law.
He stressed that the Geneva Conventions guarantee freedom of movement and travel for populations living under occupation, making what is happening today a blatant violation of a range of fundamental rights, foremost among them human dignity.
Speaking to Arabi21, Zaqout emphasised that the default principle for human beings is freedom of movement, even in the absence of medical reports proving the severity of illness. Conditioning travel on prior registration, name screening, and permission from the occupation, he argued, turns the legal rule upside down.
“The principle is permissibility, and restriction should be a narrowly defined exception based on a judicial decision in very specific cases, not a collective rule,” he said. He added that Palestinians in Gaza are deprived of freedom of movement not only through the Rafah crossing, but even internally, in accessing their homes or reaching shelters to which they were displaced during the war.
Zaqout described prior coordination for travel as an unlawful measure and a form of collective punishment, noting that such a procedure has no parallel anywhere in the world except Gaza. He said responsibility in this matter is primarily political, but this does not negate the clear legal responsibility of the occupation as an occupying power. He also placed responsibility on mediating states that pledged to guarantee implementation of the agreement, warning that their silence is understood as acceptance of the notion that the genocide has ended, while reality proves otherwise.
A Continuing Objective of Displacement
Zaqout went further, arguing that what is happening at Rafah crossing, especially towards those returning to Gaza, carries a clear message: what awaits you is humiliation and degradation. It is a message to those considering return that returning comes at a psychological cost, and a message to those contemplating travel that any future return should be carefully reconsidered.
He stressed that there can be no talk of a genuine end to the war of extermination so long as the occupation fails to uphold any of its core legal obligations, obligations that do not lapse with time and cannot be evaded by invoking security realities. He concluded that violations of freedom of movement affect other rights such as education and healthcare, making the issue far deeper than mere “crossing procedures”.
Mahmoud Al Hantafi, director of the Shahed Centre for Human Rights, described the current mechanism as one based on the principle of security permission rather than inherent right, constituting a clear violation of Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Speaking to Arabi21, Al Hantafi said that subjecting civilians to this level of control amounts to collective punishment prohibited under international humanitarian law. He added that obstructing humanitarian passage violates the occupying power’s obligations to ensure the delivery of aid and the protection of civilians, turning the crossing into an instrument of political pressure instead of a humanitarian facility.
Regarding testimonies from returnees, particularly women, Al Hantafi pointed to documented cases of forced searches and degrading interrogations that rise to the level of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, which is categorically prohibited under international law. He said these practices violate the principle of non discrimination and place direct legal responsibility on the authorities controlling the crossing for any psychological or physical harm inflicted.
Al Hantafi proposed the adoption of a written and unified crossing protocol that guarantees transparency and the right to appeal, an end to humiliating searches, the establishment of an independent oversight mechanism to receive complaints and document violations, and the formalisation of binding humanitarian corridors for patients, students, and family reunification, free from political coercion.
Crisis Management, Not a Political Solution
In the broader political context, Palestinian and American affairs analyst Tawfiq Taameh said that the Rafah crossing has never been treated as a purely humanitarian gateway, but rather as a tool of leverage and control. A ceasefire, he explained, does not signify the end of conflict or address its root causes, but is often used to buy time and rearrange positions.
He noted that partial opening achieves a delicate equation: easing humanitarian pressure enough to prevent explosion, without fully lifting the siege in a way that would strip influential actors of their leverage. An opening sufficient to absorb international anger, but not enough to break restrictions or enable Gaza economically and politically.
Taameh warned that this reality undermines the credibility of mediation and transforms it from peace efforts into crisis management. The crossing, in its current form, resembles a valve controlling collective breathing, opened and closed according to political calculations rather than human needs, remaining a witness to the absence of a political solution, not a gateway to a new phase.
