Israeli analysts have spent more than 18 months monitoring mysterious underground construction deep inside Egyptian territory, raising suspicions about secret military facilities, missile storage sites and possible links to Russian radar systems. Yet while Israeli media scrutinise what Egypt may be building beneath its mountains, satellite images have revealed something considerably closer to the border: a fortified Israeli military base rising from the ruins of a Palestinian neighbourhood in Rafah.
The contrasting developments have prompted military and security experts to question Israel’s expanding intelligence activities concerning Egypt, its reliance on sophisticated satellite surveillance, and the apparent double standards surrounding military construction on either side of the border.
According to analysts interviewed by Arabi21, Israeli interest in Egyptian military infrastructure has intensified amid concerns about Cairo’s defensive capabilities and the strategic implications of developments near the Suez Canal and Sinai Peninsula.
But the controversy extends beyond speculation about underground tunnels.
It raises questions about sovereignty, the limits of intelligence gathering, and whether Israeli military activity near Egypt’s borders complies with the security arrangements established under the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
What Did Israeli Satellites Discover Beneath an Egyptian Mountain?
On 2 November, Israeli geospatial imagery analyst Ben Zion Maklis published satellite photographs on X showing underground construction approximately 70 kilometres east of Cairo, near the Cairo-Suez desert highway.
The site lies in mountainous terrain west of the Suez Canal, outside the Sinai Peninsula.
Maklis, who describes himself as a geospatial analyst, has monitored developments at the location since April 2025.
His observations reveal what appear to be entrances excavated into a mountainside, a covered entrance structure and paved roads leading towards the underground facility.
The images attracted attention from Israeli media outlets, prompting speculation about the purpose of a complex whose interior remains unknown.
In August 2025, Maklis suggested that the excavations could be associated with military tunnels.
By May 2026, his monitoring had identified asphalt access roads extending towards the facility’s entrances.
His latest images showed one completed entrance, two additional entrances still under excavation, and a fourth opening where construction appeared to have stopped because of engineering difficulties.
Maklis suggested that the principal excavation work had been completed, although internal finishing and surrounding infrastructure development would still be required before the facility could become operational.
However, he offered no definitive explanation for what Egypt was constructing.
Instead, he drew attention to the proximity of the site to a Russian-made Resonans-NE radar system installed by Egypt around 2019 and 2020.
The apparent geographical connection became a central feature of Israeli speculation.
Among the possibilities raised were underground strategic storage facilities for military equipment, supplies or emergency reserves.
Another theory suggested a hardened military installation designed to protect sensitive equipment or command centres from aerial attacks.
A third possibility involved infrastructure associated with military surveillance or early-warning systems.
None of these theories has been independently established by the satellite images.
The photographs reveal visible entrances, excavation activity and access roads. They do not establish the dimensions of the underground chambers, their storage capacity, their internal configuration or the equipment that may eventually be housed inside.
Nevertheless, speculation about the site has continued to circulate in Israeli media.
From Underground Bunkers to Missile Storage: Israeli Media Speculation
Israel’s Channel 14 examined the images under a headline questioning what Egypt was constructing underground.
The broadcaster acknowledged that the facility’s precise purpose, internal dimensions and intended equipment remained unknown.
It also noted that proximity to the Resonans-NE radar system could raise questions about the site’s potential function, but did not constitute conclusive evidence of a connection.
The available material, Channel 14 acknowledged, provided no proof concerning the resources or weapons, if any, intended for storage at the location.
Israeli radio station EMESS similarly highlighted the facility’s geographical position and its proximity to an existing military base and Russian radar installation.
These factors, it suggested, had encouraged theories about a possible military purpose.
Other Israeli assessments went further, speculating that underground construction could indicate missile facilities, weapons storage bunkers or even an extensive military tunnel network connecting Cairo with Sinai.
However, no evidence establishing such a network was presented.
The latest controversy also follows earlier Israeli allegations concerning Egyptian military infrastructure in the Sinai Peninsula.
In August, the Israeli platform Natsiv Net claimed that intelligence assessments and satellite imagery had identified extensive underground facilities being developed in mountainous areas of northern and central Sinai.
The platform alleged that Israeli intelligence suspected some of these fortified installations were intended for missile storage.
It further claimed that Egypt had constructed underground shelters and hardened complexes near expanding military infrastructure, including three airfields whose runways had reportedly been renovated to accommodate fighter aircraft.
The publication also referred to Egypt’s established ballistic missile infrastructure west of Sinai, including the historic Jabal Hamza site, which it claimed had undergone renovation and expansion.
It connected these claims to the large underground complex approximately 70 kilometres east of Cairo, near Egyptian defence installations.
Cairo rejected the allegations concerning its military activities in Sinai, maintaining that its defensive measures were sovereign actions intended to secure Egypt’s borders and combat terrorism.
The distinction matters.
Egyptian military construction inside Egyptian territory is not, by itself, evidence of preparations for an offensive operation against Israel.
Yet Israeli scrutiny of such developments has intensified even as Israel continues expanding its own military presence near Egypt’s borders.
The Rafah Paradox: Israel Questions Egyptian Tunnels While Building Its Own Base
For Lebanese military expert Brigadier General Hisham Jaber, the controversy exposes a striking contradiction.
Israel is publicly raising concerns about underground facilities situated outside Sinai, while simultaneously consolidating its military presence in Gaza, directly adjacent to Egyptian territory.
Speaking to Arabi21, Jaber questioned why construction approximately 70 kilometres east of Cairo was generating alarm in Israel when the Israeli military was itself expanding near Egypt’s border.
He pointed specifically to an Israeli military installation established on the ruins of the Swedish Village, a Palestinian neighbourhood in southern Rafah, near the Mediterranean coast.
The installation is approximately 70 metres from the Egyptian border in northern Sinai.
According to the account, Israeli forces began establishing the position in July, transforming the destroyed neighbourhood into a fortified military site.
Satellite imagery has since revealed an extensive military installation featuring reinforced shelters, concrete structures, paved surfaces, service buildings and areas designated for military vehicles.
The site also includes barbed-wire barriers, communications towers and observation posts extending along the coastal strip.
These features suggest an increasingly established Israeli military presence along the Rafah coastline.
Israel has controlled the Philadelphi Corridor, the strategically sensitive strip separating Gaza from Egypt, since 29 May 2024.
In November 2025, Israeli authorities also announced that the border with Egypt would be designated a closed military zone.
The new installation has consequently raised questions about the long-term character of Israel’s deployment near Egyptian territory.
Jaber argued that the controversy surrounding Egyptian construction appeared particularly inconsistent when considered alongside these developments.
While Israeli commentators speculate about tunnels far from the border, satellite photographs show Israeli forces constructing fortified positions immediately beside it.
The comparison also raises questions about compliance with the security arrangements established under the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
Could Israel’s New Military Base Violate the Camp David Arrangements?
The 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel established a series of security zones intended to regulate military deployments on both sides of the border.
Sinai was divided into three zones, designated A, B and C, with varying restrictions on military forces and equipment.
Zone D, on the Israeli side of the security arrangements, is subject to separate limitations.
Under the treaty’s security provisions, Israel is restricted from deploying tanks, artillery and anti-aircraft missiles in Zone D.
The arrangements permit four infantry battalions, with a maximum of 4,000 personnel and up to 180 armoured personnel carriers, alongside specified military installations and fortifications.
Some experts cited by Arabi21 argue that Israel’s new military position in Rafah raises serious concerns about compliance with these restrictions and the subsequent 2005 arrangements concerning the Philadelphi Corridor.
However, determining whether the facility constitutes a treaty violation requires more than identifying its military characteristics.
Egyptian international relations and national security researcher Dr Mohamed Anwar El-Sawy explained that the installation’s precise geographical position must be compared with the treaty maps and the applicable security arrangements.
He noted that Article II of the peace treaty affirms the inviolability of borders and respect for the territorial integrity of both parties, while maintaining an explicit reservation concerning the status of the Gaza Strip.
The distinction is particularly relevant because the Israeli installation is situated in Rafah, within Gaza, rather than automatically falling within the treaty’s Zone D restrictions.
Its legal status must therefore be assessed against the precise geographical boundaries and applicable agreements.
Nevertheless, El-Sawy argued that the physical establishment of a military base near Egypt deserves closer scrutiny than unverified speculation about an underground facility deep inside Egyptian territory.
He drew attention to the contrasting imagery.
West of the Suez Canal, satellite photographs show excavated entrances and paved roads at an Egyptian construction site whose purpose remains unknown.
On the Rafah coastline, other images document an Israeli military position established on the ruins of a destroyed Palestinian neighbourhood.
For El-Sawy, the first raises questions about what Egypt may be constructing.
The second documents an actual change in military deployments along Egypt’s border.
That difference, he argued, should inform assessments of Egyptian border security.
A Palestinian Neighbourhood Destroyed, Then Replaced by a Military Installation
El-Sawy also referred to a visual investigation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), which documented developments at the Swedish Village site.
According to his account, imagery from May showed machinery removing rubble from the destroyed Palestinian neighbourhood.
By August, satellite photographs revealed an Israeli military installation occupying the area where the neighbourhood had previously stood.
The significance of the facility extends beyond its immediate military function.
El-Sawy explained that a permanent military position could provide Israeli forces with a logistical and operational support point for patrols, troop rotations and continued deployments along Egypt’s border.
Such infrastructure could make maintaining an Israeli presence in the area easier.
However, he cautioned that satellite images establish the existence of the installation, not necessarily how long it will remain operational.
Assessing whether the position represents a temporary deployment or a more enduring military presence would require monitoring its subsequent use.
The consequences for Palestinians are already apparent in the physical transformation of the site.
A military installation constructed over the remains of a residential neighbourhood creates a substantial obstacle to the return of displaced Gaza residents to their homes.
El-Sawy argued that the potential threat posed by the Israeli base would depend partly on how it is used after construction.
If it becomes a regularly operating support facility, Israeli forces would gain an enhanced ability to sustain deployments near Egypt’s border.
This raises a broader question about why Israeli scrutiny is concentrated on Egyptian construction far from Sinai while military infrastructure is being established on the ruins of Palestinian homes immediately beside Egyptian territory.
Are Western Satellites Being Used to Spy on Egypt?
Beyond the construction controversy, military analysts have raised concerns about the intelligence capabilities being used to monitor Egyptian territory.
Jaber alleged that Israel benefits from extensive access to Western satellite systems, including those associated with the United States, France and Britain.
He claimed that these capabilities provide Israeli intelligence with continuous surveillance and reconnaissance support.
According to Jaber, Israel uses Western satellite technology to monitor Egyptian territory around the clock, gathering information about developments that could be considered strategically significant.
He argued that the discovery of the underground facility had generated concern in Israel precisely because satellite imagery could identify its external structure without revealing its contents.
From an Israeli intelligence perspective, the inability to determine what lies inside such a complex leaves considerable uncertainty.
Jaber suggested that Israeli authorities could perceive the installation as a potential future threat regardless of whether it was situated in Sinai or near Cairo.
He also maintained that Egypt should not provide Israel with information about the installation.
In his assessment, Israel’s concerns did not justify demands for access to details concerning Egyptian military infrastructure.
However, a crucial distinction remains between allegations of state-directed intelligence surveillance and the publicly documented activity of an Israeli geospatial analyst examining satellite photographs.
The publication of satellite imagery does not, by itself, establish that Israeli government agencies directed the surveillance or that Western governments assisted in obtaining it.
El-Sawy emphasised that identifying the satellite operator, determining who commissioned the imagery and establishing any involvement by Israeli or Western government agencies would require independent evidence.
Those details have not been established by the published analysis.
Nevertheless, the episode demonstrates the intelligence value of commercial and military satellite imagery.
Can Israel Legally Monitor Egyptian Territory From Space?
The question of whether satellite surveillance violates Egyptian sovereignty is more complicated than the political controversy suggests.
According to El-Sawy, the intelligence value of geospatial surveillance lies in its ability to document changes over time.
By comparing successive satellite photographs, analysts can track construction progress, identify changes in movement patterns and potentially estimate when a facility might become operational.
When combined with other intelligence sources, such observations can provide insights into military infrastructure without requiring direct access to the location.
But the legal framework governing satellite observation differs from the rules governing aircraft operating in another country’s airspace.
El-Sawy explained that photographing Egyptian territory from orbit does not, by itself, constitute a violation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
Article III of the treaty’s first annex regulates combat and reconnaissance aircraft operating within the designated security zones.
Satellite operations, however, fall under the separate legal framework governing activities in outer space.
Consequently, the existence of satellite imagery showing Egyptian infrastructure is insufficient to establish a treaty breach.
The situation would be different if a foreign military aircraft entered Egyptian airspace without authorisation.
Such an incident would engage the rules governing national airspace sovereignty.
El-Sawy referred to the Chicago Convention, which requires state aircraft to obtain authorisation before flying over another country’s territory.
The legal distinction is therefore important.
Satellite monitoring may generate political and security concerns, particularly when it involves sensitive military infrastructure, but those concerns do not automatically make the activity unlawful.
Any allegation involving unauthorised aerial reconnaissance or government-directed intelligence operations would require specific supporting evidence.
The Bigger Question Is What Israel Is Doing Along Egypt’s Border
The controversy illustrates two different security developments unfolding simultaneously.
Inside Egyptian territory, Israeli analysts are monitoring underground construction whose precise purpose remains unconfirmed.
Near Egypt’s border with Gaza, satellite images document an Israeli military installation established on the ruins of a Palestinian neighbourhood.
The first development has produced speculation about tunnels, missile storage facilities and strategic military infrastructure.
The second has raised tangible concerns about border deployments, treaty arrangements and the future of displaced Palestinians whose neighbourhood has been transformed into a military position.
For the military and security specialists interviewed by Arabi21, that distinction is central to understanding the controversy.
Egypt’s construction activities remain the subject of competing interpretations, while Israel’s expanding military infrastructure in Rafah can be examined through observable changes on the ground.
The legal questions are not identical, and determining whether any treaty provisions have been violated requires evidence beyond satellite photographs alone.
But the strategic implications remain substantial.
Israel is demanding answers about what may be hidden beneath an Egyptian mountain, while its own military is establishing fortified positions beside Egypt’s border.
Whether the Egyptian site contains strategic storage facilities, command infrastructure or something entirely different remains unknown.
What is already visible is the military transformation taking place in Rafah, and the questions it raises about Israel’s intentions along one of the region’s most sensitive borders.
